This is actually kind of funny because even though voluntarily agreeing to keep your house pretty only so you can force your neighbors to keep their houses pretty isn't breaking any natural rights and is technically compatible with Liberty, it does represent a tyrannical state of mind.
It doesn't surprise me that your development attracts more buyers because of that. People in this country love to control others.
It's interesting that you keep pointing out it's a desire to control. I also live in a development with an HOA, but it's nice because the fees go towards maintaining common areas (the mailbox area, various fields, playground, the winding streets that are not part of the city and require repairs from time to time, retaining walls that keep creeks from overflowing and blocking exits from the homes in flood situations, the trees whose limbs need trimming, etc.). The clauses about houses are still there, in that there are certain dimensions over which your home cannot go, and certain colors which your home should approximate. Those are there when you buy your home, however, and most people don't really want a bright flamingo pink house, so it doesn't become an issue. If they did want a neon-colored home, they wouldn't buy here. I'm glad I don't have to look at that. Again, we get back to the idea of preference.
The size restrictions are there because you could always buy a house, tear it down, and then build one twice as big... which would go right on up to the property line. The lots are not huge here, and so you would literally be encroaching on your neighbor's house. It's a courtesy thing, but most folks have lost that trait. I don't really see it as an issue, either, and like the assurance that anyone purchasing would have to have agreed to that, hence my property value is spared.
There are no regulations regarding pets or "lawn junk" anymore; neighbors wind up enforcing that on their own. Pets who routinely do their business in someone else's yard are not much of an issue, because of those well-maintained paths through what used to be a golf course. Lawn junk tends to be picked up by our excellent trash service (they really will take anything anywhere near the curb that looks like junk), or if not that, the neighbors will chip in to clean or offer a tactful word. This is very rarely a problem, since most people do want to keep a clean yard. There are several people who work on cars in the neighborhood, but they do so without leaving them on the lawn.
None of that is control over others. It's a mutual agreement to keep the neighborhood nice, and the terms of "nice" are defined in the contract. There are meetings, but not very often, and they are well-advertised. Any changes have to be voted on by a certain percentage of the homeowners, not just those that show up. In the meantime, the tradeoff is a beautifully wooded area where I know all my neighbors, and they know me, and where the houses are of myriad styles --- but not loud colors or overhanging their property line. The streets are maintained, there are lots of neat little creek beds and ponds and huge wild stands of flowers that are a riot of color in the spring.
Oh yeah, sounds like an attempt to control others.
What a tyrannical state of mind, living around people who want to make an attempt at having a community, and keeping their homes up to similar standards as you'd like to keep yours.
