Needs to be plagiarism free! is community boasts that they have moved ahead of government by being able to enforce these restrictions through the contracts signed by the homeowners that in the public sector might run afoul of constitutional restrictions and statutory limitations. This particular circumstance underscores a dimension in housing associations – whether its administration puts the interests of the organisation above those of its residents.

The very name, housing association, is misleading. Housing associations or homeowners associations are often not association in the sense of an expression of organisc life as the center of communal perceptions and common activities, nor, in many cases, are they controlled by homeowners. Nathaniel Gates (1997) argued that the inhabitants of these communities, drawn from many different backgrounds, often have little in common, and the developer nearly absolute control over the community. (p. 253) In a way, housing associations became some sort of private governments that could one day overshadow cities in significance. The rules of the housing associations, no less than cities, define political spheres. An association, like any community with the power to preserve and perpetuate itself, is coercive. This paper will argue that because of this fact, it must assert its own interests against the interests both of outsiders and, at times, of some of its own members.

The basic idea for a home association with common ownership and upkeep of open space started with Leicester Square in London in 1734, which was governed by restrictive covenants. The legal concept was exported to the New World when in 1831, Samuel Ruggles drained a swamp in New York City and built a block of homes around a park. This community was called the Gramercy Park and it consisted an eight-foot high fence. Each resident had a key to a gate in the fence for access. The residents held title to the park in trust.