I don't know much about "absolutists" but I do know a handful of Libertarians, and the ones I know do believe in honoring contracts. If the HOA were preexisting, then as ATF mentions, it would probably be a deed restriction (or the legal equivalent) on buying the property.<quoted text>
I agree to a point, but remember ATF is an absolutist on the issue of property rights. So if he believes in absolute property rights, to be consistent he should believe he has the right to buy into a a HOA area and NOT follow its rules if he chooses.
Which is counter to his ideal notion - because what if he CHOOSES to buy in, and abide by the rules BUT the guy next door lawfully acquires property and chooses not to join the HOA? How does that make an effective HOA? I suppose he could argue that his HOA could be geographically scattershot in implementation for that reason, but these organizations traditionally cover common infrastructure....so to be effective they would have to have a 100% buy in, and they do for that reason.
I think it is in case of overlapping jurisdictions, i.e. the town has subdivision regulations that say you can split the lots for development, but the local organization says you can not. However, if there is something in the deed, it might pre-empt BOTH groups. I am not 100% sure.
for stuff like grass height, that isnt usually addressed by town regs - except perhaps if they have nuisance ordinances
Its all pretty fascinating when you think about it.
I think local ordinances usually address something where they can force you to keep your yard up to some sort of minimal standards. And think any HOA would be if anything even more restrictive.(which I don't think would conflict with the local regs) But I'm not a RE attorney either.(Only a former Realtor and RE investor)