I agree, I don't think HOA is good idea here, at least not, "the right to veto the buyer" part. This creates a whole litany of potential moral hazards "okay, I

I agree, I don't think HOA is good idea here, at least not, "the right to veto the buyer" part. This creates a whole litany of potential moral hazards "okay, I'll approve them BUT you do XYZ or pay me ABC" or simply someone with a chip on their shoulder or feeling slighted might jam it up out of spite. It's not uncommon to see low key frustration between neighbors. It's also worth mentioning that in California urban regions, where such a law is most applicable here, the townships are fairly highly regulated to the point of being a quasi-HOA. Specifically, various housing developments may have bylaws and rules - no HOA - but bylaws and rules enforced by the local city and burned onto the property deed. A true to life HOA in Idaho or Wyoming, for example, may offer more freedom and flexibility than a HOA-free property subject to local government in California.