private associations and free speech

a recent article in usa today claims that homeowners associations are stifling free speech rights by forbidding political yard signs. it seems to me that one doesn’t really have free-speech rights if s/he’s signed a contract agreeing to give them up, as many homeowners have done. if homeowners are surprised and upset, they didn’t read the association rules carefully before they signed the contract, or valued the other amenities offered by the association more than their “right” to post yard signs. it could be that they didn’t foresee themselves wanting to post yard signs, and therefore didn’t factor that into their decision.

usa today is unnecessarily concerned that entire cities are – or will soon be - ruled by such associations. although in the worst case scenario homes not ruled by an association may someday be in inconvenient locations, the buyer will always have that trade-off. i am willing to bet that even in a market where only association homes were available, homeowners associations, in an effort to attract more members, will compete with each other. this will result in a variety of associations that appeal to the variegated tastes and values of homeowners. for this reason i sincerely doubt a situation where a whole region is ruled by only one association, but even then homeowners aren’t being forced to move to a particular region, and they can opt to move elsewhere.

the concern of private vs. public power is an important issue to debate theoretically, but as long as people have a choice to avoid being ruled by private power such as this, the issue is not one for serious concern.

link via NCPA

Labels: social