Is anyone interested in discussing the front page article in today's Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043001060.html and the aspects relevant to HOAs? [?] I found the sections dealing with HOAs as government interesting, and I also found the land-use concepts interesting. I once saw an opinion posting by a resident of Purcellville in a nws forum, who said that we would not need parks if there were no development, because before there was development kids just played in the woods and down the creekbeds. I did that too when I was a kid, but it doesn't change the fact that the land belongs to someone, then and now. Granted, if only two or three families own all of the land surrounding you, that reduces the number of people from whom you need to gain permission to use their land, but it doesn't change the fact that someone owns it. The same feeling/perception seemed to be present in the article: there are the swimming pools etc in the planned developments, for which the residents agree to pay what is in effect a tax when they choose to purchase there, and what should be the policy on opening the amenities thus funded to nearby residents who do not participate in the tax structure which provides the amenity? Also interesting was the other side of the issue (which is really the same concept), of the woman in Lenah who sees new residents of the by-right Lenah Run walk their dogs on her property etc. Where do HOAs fit in the larger service/amenity structure? What is the evolving concept of property ownership? I'm interested in everybody's opinions, including the other members of the forum who live in Brambleton, Ashburn Farm, and other developments in the area. Comments? Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.