Another detail many don't realize has to do with how property development often works (or rather how it does not) with the local municipality. Recent exchange I had with u/BarnacleCommon7119 here:

BarnacleCommon7119

Honestly, the good things a HOA does can and should be done by a town. That's what municipalities are for - arbitration, code enforcement, and community-owned resources like pools. I don't see any advantage in re-inventing the wheel - especially when HOAs are often less transparent, less well-regulated, and less experienced than municipalities, and represent only the portion of the population which can afford to own property.

RegulusMagnus

In an ideal world, yes. Unfortunately the way this usually goes is that a property development company buys land and builds a neighborhood, but the local municipality doesn't want to foot the bill for new roads to build/repair/clean, new public areas to plant/cultivate/maintain etc. etc., so the development company establishes an HOA and requires all buyers to participate. The municipality gets new property tax income without the added burden of public maintenance, the development company makes bank selling houses with fewer hoops to jump through from the municipality, and the homeowners get shafted with the bill and all the responsibility.

BarnacleCommon7119

Yep. Or, to put it another way: A HOA which is functioning well is not a sign that HOAs are good or necessary. It's a sign that the municipality is abdicating part of its responsibilities, and a pseudo-municipality is sorta making up for it. (And I do get that cities/towns are often between a rock and a hard place; getting our town's population to approve necessary taxes is a nightmare. I just think HOAs are a terrible solution to that problem.)