In response to the writer's statement about the board's "nebulous lectures about 'rights'", the columnists' reply is right on target: "Owners don't give up any of their individual rights or liberties . . . when they purchase . . . " a home in an HOA. The surrender of one's rights has always required an explicit consent to a specific right, and any generalized assertion of a loss of rights by the "central government", the HOA board, is an arrogant assumption of wrongful powers.
We are still in America, aren't we? Are we not talking about a government under contract, the HOA, and not a public government? How dare the board ascribe attributes of public government to the HOA when there is a contract that specifies the duties, responsibilities and rights of all parties. Does an absence of the surrender of a right mean that the board can usurp that right? Contracts cannot be modified without the consent of the other party. The contract is meaningless when a socialistic "greater benefit" is allowed to deny the written contract.
Are we still a country under the rule of law, or under the rule of man? Are HOAs free to do as they please in total disregard of the rights, privileges and immunities as stated by the supreme law of the land.
Has the Constitution been replaced by the property laws governing HOAs?