Does anyone else see the humor, and the irony, in Bill Vogrin's piece about the objections that some smaller Homeowners Associations are voicing to the allegedly-onerous mandates imposed on them by the state? The article even quotes Jan Doran -- who has no problem enforcing mandates on her "neighbors" via her Discovery Neighborhood Homeowners Association -- calling for "a little less-rigorous governmental involvement” in the affairs of HOAs.

I happen to agree with Doran that the state should meddle less, or not at all, in the affairs of private HOAs. But I also think HOAs should meddle less, or not at all, in the affairs of people living under them. The only reason the state got involved is that some HOAs begun wielding too much power with too little flexibility, transparency or accountability. Some people who live under HOAs feel that they've become little tyrannies, which trample property rights and other civil liberties as a result of . . . well . . . of all the mandates.

It's hard to have a lot of sympathy for meddlesome HOAs when they complain about meddling. What goes around comes around, as they say.