I think typically there will be a process within the Bylaws which allows modification of the Bylaws. In the case I'm familiar with, any change in the Bylaws requires a supermajority vote of three-fourths of the unit owners.
These three-fourths, in effect, are powerful enough to exercise ANY control over the common property that a single individual could exercise over property the he alone owns. This possibility, that the remaining one-quarter of unit owners might have imposed upon them some very inconvenient controls, are exactly why I would never live in such a place.
But I did buy such a place for a relative. Due to the nature of common ownership, he is able to live in a very nice "apartment" but, in effect, he owns part of the common areas and he is able to live in a better place than if he was just a renter.
“In the case I’m familiar with, any change in the Bylaws requires a supermajority vote of three-fourths of the unit owners.”
Must be nice. In the HOA I was in, a majority vote of the BOD would create binding rules on the HOA. On a 2-1 vote by the BOD, a paint scheme requirement was added to the rules.
I suspect the HOA in the article ran into problems from playing favorites. That was another problem in our HOA. If you were friends with the BOD, you could do no wrong. If they didn’t like you, you would not get ANY improvement approved, and you would get monthly nastygrams. The HOA complaints against homeowners rarely involved a violation of a written rule. I was one of several homeowners who threatened to sue the HOA for trying to impose fines based on personal whim. And it sounds like the HOA in the article may have tried that as well, although the details are missing.