Abstract
In this chapter we will focus principally on the differences and similarities between contractual communities; special attention will be given to their similarities, as this will enable us to shed further light on the phenomenon of contractual communities, and lay the basis for the arguments and proposals tabled in the ensuing chapters. We will also outline the reasons for the success of this type of communities, and put forward some conjectures about their future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The scale and physical shape of the said enclave are not preconceived factors, as each one’s nature is instead determined by the needs of the context, adjusting accordingly to the evolving demands of the local use and management of the relative goods and services. As already pointed out repeatedly, this constituting feature of the community’s being anchored to the specific context, gives rise to a broad variety of spatial configurations for settlements of the kind under discussion here, ranging from a compound of separate buildings, to an urban neighbourhood, or a full-fledged community of town size.
- 2.
To distinguish the type of issues involved in private and public law, the first is said to concern the interrelations (e.g., the exchange of goods) among citizens; whereas the second covers the interrelations between the state and the citizens as a whole [with specific reference to land use issue, see Needham (2006)].
- 3.
See also Deng et al. (2007, p. 195): “Private communities, in various forms, compete in the search for new urban institutions”. And Chen (2011, p. 5): "HOA (Homeowners association) is a kind of institutional innovation by developers, which demonstrates… that there are institutional alternatives in neighbourhood management".
- 4.
- 5.
Contracts present the following qualities. First, contracts “are concerned with the distribution of responsibilities and obligations. They place responsibility on people and/or organisations to comply with their own voluntary agreements. As such, they facilitate ‘responsibilisation’ within civil society”. Second, contracts “entail a degree of reciprocity or mutuality. Responsibilisation is not merely one-way”. Third, contracts “assume a ‘sense of choice’. … The more people believe that they have choice in … an agreement, the more they are likely to adhere to its logic. In this sense, contracting is ‘reflexive’ as it seeks to achieve the collaboration and cooperation of those subject to the regulation, favouring self-regulation”. Fourth, contracts “presuppose a conscious awareness of a future and a desire to control the uncertainty of the future by regulating its excesses”. Fifth, contracts “provoke active rather than merely passive responsibility” (Crawford 2003, pp. 489–490).
- 6.
See also Ellickson (1982, p. 1526): "The initial members of a homeowners association, by their voluntary acts of joining, unanimously consent to the provisions in the associations’ original governing documents. … This unanimous ratification elevates those documents to the legal status of a private ‘constitution’. The original documents … are a true social contract. The feature of unanimous ratification distinguishes these documents from and gives them greater legal robustness than non-unanimously adopted public constitutions”.
- 7.
We will return to this issue in Chap. 6.
- 8.
Worth noting are the results of a national survey in the US conducted by Zogby International in 2009 on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. While the survey covered several types of community associations (homeowners associations, condominiums, housing cooperatives), the results are indicative for the arguments under discussion here. To the question: “Do you think the members of your elected governing board strive to serve the best interests of the community a whole?”, 44% responded “Absolutely”, and 45% “For the most part”. Source: Community Associations Institute (www.caionline.org).
- 9.
In the United States various local administrations have welcomed the fact that certain companies or associations opted to take on the direct management of infrastructure and services, thereby considerably easing the tight local budgets (McKenzie, 1998). Elsewhere, for example in some countries across Europe (e.g., Italy), one can see – at least for the time being–a stronger aversion of public administrations toward such contractual communities as homeowners associations.
- 10.
We quote here the results of the national survey carried out in the United States by Zogby International (2009) (covering homeowners associations, condominiums, and housing cooperatives). As for “the best aspects of living in an association”, the replies are as follows: 23% “Neighbourhood attractiveness”; 22% “Less maintenance for individual homeowners”; 13% “Community safety”; 11% “Property values”. Source: Community Associations Institute (www.caionline.org).
- 11.
It is interesting to recall here some data covering the situation in the US taken from the recent American Housing Survey (United States Census Bureau 2009). Some 90.66% ticked the option “satisfactory police protection”; and only 6.57% ticked “unsatisfactory police protection” (The remainder gave no answer.). As for the question “serious crime in past 12 months” in your neighbourhood, 80.6% responded “no”; 17.26% responded in the affirmative. These data seem to indicate both that crime is not perceived as a constant and pervasive threat, and that people are quite satisfied with the protection offered by the police force. See Appendix, Tables 7 and 8, for details.
- 12.
The development was got under way by two construction partners, Charles Fraser and Fred Hack. From the outset Fraser and Hack failed to agree on the development project: but the two decided to go ahead—separately—with two different projects. Hack constructed traditional buildings without an overall scheme, and sold them piecemeal as they became read. Whereas Fraser conceived a unitary settlement and functional community of residents, envisaging forms of specific safeguard for the island’s ecosystem, applying rigid covenants that bound owners to the upkeep of the original project over time. In this way he began to realise the settlement of Sea Pines, which would become one of the most cited examples for the combination of residential development and environmental protection. Fraser’s approach was so successful in economic terms that his former partner was forced to recant and copy the former’s scheme—the same applied to many of the other islands and coastal sites in the area. In such cases, the developers went far beyond their legal obligations in terms of respect and protection of the environment. As Rinehart and Pompe write (1997, p. 555), commenting the case of Hilton Head: “By not building as close to the ocean as possible and by protecting shoreline vegetation, property values for the community are enhanced. Although developers find protecting such environmental resources costly, they will voluntarily engage in such activity when they expect to receive private net gains”. And: “Private developers are making significant efforts to protect environmental resources that add to the net collective value of the community. These efforts are simply profit-maximising behaviour by developers responding to property owners’ growing demands to protect the environment and preserve the natural landscape” (p. 557).
- 13.
Examples worth citing in the United States include: Ross Bridge (Alabama), Civano (Arizona), DC Ranch (Arizona), Desert Highlands (Arizona), Talking Rock Ranch (Arizona), Portola Valley Ranch (California), Village Homes (California), Sea Ranch (California), Bonita Bay (Florida), Tupelo Plantation (Florida), The Peninsula at Golden Isles (Georgia), Huntsman Spring (Idaho), River Rim Ranch (Idaho), Prairie Crossing (Illinois), Coffee Creek Center (Indiana), Radisson Community Association (New York), Mountain Park Home Owners Association (Oregon), Eagle Rock Reserve (Montana), Great Brook Preserve (Maine), The Branches at East Fork (North Carolina), Crescent Communities on Lake James (North Carolina), Balsam Mountain Preserve (North Carolina), Cliffside of Hickory Nut Falls (North Carolina), Creston (North Carolina), Firefly Mountain (North Carolina), French Broad River Crossing (North Carolina), Hickory Nut Forest (North Carolina), Highlands Pass (North Carolina), Mount Wilderness (North Carolina), Palmetto Creek (North Carolina), The Cove at Flat Gap (North Carolina), Cedar Creek Falls Retreat (North Carolina), The Legacy at Jordan Lake (North Carolina), The Preserve at Little Pine (North Carolina), Sunalei Preserve (North Carolina), Dewees Island (South Carolina), Seabrook Island Property Owners Association (South Carolina), Haig Point Club (South Carolina), Daufuskie Resort (South Carolina), Spring Island (South Carolina), Kiawah Island (South Carolina), The Ponds (South Carolina), Woodland Valley (South Carolina), Thunder Pointe (Tennessee), Homestead Preserve (Virginia), Preserve at Hunters Lake (Wisconsin).
References
Baron, J. (2006). Property and no-property. Houston Law Review, 42(5), 1425–1449.
Boudreaux, D., & Holcombe, R. (2002). Contractual governments in theory and practice. In D. T. Beito, P. Gordon & A. Tabarrok (Eds.), The voluntary city. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Brunetta, G. (2006). Competere e cooperare. Italian Journal of Regional Science, 5(1), 133–139.
Brunetta, G. (2008). Processi di auto-organizzazione sociale e cambiamento istituzionale. In G. De Luca (Ed.), Discutendo intorno alla città del liberalismo attivo. Firenze: Alinea.
Chen, S. C. Y. (2011). Common interest development and the changing roles of government and market in planning. Urban Studies, 1–14.
Crawford, A. (2003). Contractual governance of deviant behaviour. Journal of Law and Society, 30(4), 479–505.
Deng, F. F., Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. W. (2007). Private communities, market institutions and planning. In N. Verma (Ed.), Institutions and planning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ellickson, R. C. (1982). Cities and homeowners associations. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 130, 1519–1580.
Fennell, L. A. (2004). Contracting community. University of Illinois Law Review, 4, 829–898.
Foldvary, F. (1994). Public goods and private communities. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Foldvary, F. (2006). The economic case for private residential government. In G. Glasze, C. Webster & K. Frantz (Eds.), Private cities. Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge.
Foldvary, F. (2009). Urban planning: The government or the market. In R. G. Holcombe & B. Powell (Eds.), Housing America. Building out of a crisis. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Foldvary, F. E., & Klein, D. B. (2003a). Introduction. In F. E. Foldvary & D. B. Klein (Eds.), The half-life of policy rationales. New York: New York University Press.
Foldvary, F. E., & Klein, D. B. (Eds.). (2003b). The half-life of policy rationales. New York: New York University Press.
Glasze, G., Webster, C., & Frantz, K. (Eds.). (2006a). Private cities. Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge.
Glasze, G., Webster, C., & Frantz, K. (2006b). Introduction: Global and local perspectives on the rise of private neighbourhoods. In G. Glasze, C. Webster & K. Frantz (Eds.), Private cities. Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge.
Goodman, P. (1967). Like a conquered promise. New York: Vintage.
Heath, S. (1957). Citadel market and altar. Baltimore: The Science of Society Foundation.
Kilburn, J. C., & Shrum, W. (1998). Private and collective protection in urban areas. Urban Affairs Review, 33(6), 790–812.
Lee, S., & Webster, C. (2006). Enclosure of the urban commons. GeoJournal, 66, 27–42.
Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises of government. London: J. M. Dent 2002.
MacCallum, S. H. (1970). The art of community. Menlo Park: Institute for Humane Studies.
MacCallum, S. H. (2003). The enterprise of community. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(4), 1–15.
McKenzie, E. (1998). Homeowner associations and california politics. An explanatory analysis. Urban Affairs Review, 34(1), 52–75.
McKenzie, E. (2005). Planning through residential clubs: Homeowner associations. Economic Affairs, 25(4), 28–31.
McKenzie, E. (2006). Emerging trends in state regulation of private communities in the U.S. GeoJournal, 66(1–2), 89–102.
Musgrave, R. A., & Musgrave, P. B. (1976). Public finance in theory and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Needham, B. (2006). Planning law and economics. The rules we make for using land. London: Routledge.
Nelson, R. H. (2005). Private neighbourhoods. Washington: Urban Institute Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Rinehart, J. R., & Pompe, J. J. (1997). Entrepreneurship and coastal resource management. The Independent Review, 1(4), 543–559.
Sennett, R. (1992). The uses of disorder. Personal identity and city life. New York: Norton & Company.
United States Census Bureau. (2009). American housing survey for the United States. Washington (D.C.): U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ward, C. (1973). Anarchy in action. London: Allen and Unwin.
Webster, C., & Glasze, G. (2006). Conclusion: Dynamic urban order and the rise of residential clubs. In G. Glasze, C. Webster & K. Frantz (Eds.), Private cities. Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge.
Winokur, J. L. (1994). Choice, consent and citizenship in common interest communities. In S. E. Barton & C. J. Silverman (Eds.), Common interest communities. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brunetta, G., Moroni, S. (2012). Differences and Similarities Between Contractual Communities, and Reasons for Their Success. In: Contractual Communities in the Self-Organising City. SpringerBriefs in Geography. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2859-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2859-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2858-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2859-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)