The answer is likely that it makes sense for maintenance purposes, but the legal authority granted to an HOA is overly broad.
However, "There is absolutely no reason why a single family house needs to be in a mandatory HOA" is easy to refute.
HOA's provide a way for managing shared infrastructure that would not be feasible for a single home owner. Common examples of basic infrastructure include roads, storm water management, lighting, and even community wells. I would argue that is the primary purpose. Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either.
why is that? and why is the county or state government not taking over the responsibility then? for example in germany a democratic local government is guaranteed by basic law, so a neighborhood outside of a municipality is practically not possible and considered a violation of basic law.
you are right that in practice the difference may not be that noticeable, but i believe that not being state actors is a significant distinction. if it acts like a government, and if it quacks like a government it should be a government and be subject to those same rules.
not having a municipality of any kind in my opinion is an oversight of state/federal law. people should have democratic representation whereever they live. HOAs don't provide that.
A homeowner association is a private, legally-incorporated organization that governs a housing community, collects dues, and sets rules for its residents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_Sta...
A public institution is a juristic person in the United States which is backed through public funds and controlled by the state.
HOAs are not controlled or funded by the state, no more than Private Businesses are. municipalities are controlled by the state.
if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes like HOAs do then the distinction may not matter. it is however a legally significant distinction.
one point where the distinction matters is that HOAs can limit your freedom of speech, while municipalities can not.
https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-...
>if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes
Municipalities have bigger reach because they also control what you do inside your home. Codes are more expansive and detailed than any HOA bylaws and cover interior much more than the exterior. And, of course, the municipality controls if you can live in your house at all and can kick you out if it wishes so.
your points are valid but arguing about the definition of what is public isn't helpful.
same goes for government control. you are not wrong, but again, the legal difference in what that control is matters. private entities have constitutional protection and rules that are clearly defined and distinct from the protection and rules for public institutions. the control the government has is simply different and that difference matters.
the bigger reach of municipalities doesn't go away in HOAs because most HOAs are within a municipality. that makes HOAs at best redundant, at worst you have to suffer both. at least with municipality you have democracy on your side. HOAs are controlled by owners, everyone else is second class. that's not a democracy. the result is that the combination of government and HOA gives you less freedom than government alone. HOAs don't replace the government, they don't make it go away.
HOAs in my opinion should be treated like government entities because they are given quasi government like powers without the same checks and balances that government has. they aren't and for me that's a problem.