A growing number of Americans are currently living in tightly controlled communities of condominiums, co-ops, or even single-family homes. These communities are usually governed by elected associations of homeowners that establish and enforce rules designed to protect property values. Some students of such residential communities argue that, because they are private governments with the power to collect taxes, provide services, and regulate behavior, they should be subject to the Constitution’s restraints on government action.
(a) Do the governors of such associations use coercion, or do they use persuasion to induce residents not to post signs, erect satellite dish antennas, park pickup trucks on the streets, or neglect their lawns and gardens?
(b) Defenders of such associations argue that compliance with the rules is voluntary because residents consent to obey the rules before they purchase. Do you agree? What if the governing association enacts a new rule to which a particular homeowner strongly objects? Is that homeowner’s compliance still voluntary?
(c) One critic of such associations argues that consent is not voluntary because such common-property developments are often the most affordable housing available, and that people therefore have little choice about living in them. He points to the fact that these developments are the fastest-growing form of new housing in the United States in order to argue that they are private governments and should be subject to the constitutional protections that constrain regular governments. Do you agree?