consider home owners associations. Developers are not building individual homes in urban areas. Developers view the associations as another revenue stream.
I don't know how developers get revenues from associations, but the important point is that a buyer in any area has hundreds of options if they don't like associations.
Homeowners associations are like churches. You can pick the type you want, pick none at all, or start your own if you can persuade others that your preferences have merit.
Developers are often required, as a condition of the permitting process, to set aside a sizeable portion of the land being developed to maintain a green area, perhaps a school plot and the conservation of the natural flora; while this may seem like a cost to the developer it is the only way he can build in order to make a profit on his investment in the land.
To ensure that the property is kept up in the commons, an association is generally required as well.
While this may seem innocuous enough when the buyer's eyes are full of ownership stars, down the road aways awaits a pothole empty of logic and surrounded by a thicket of conflict.
At most, one has a limited interest in the whole and not a right in situ; when ready to move, he must sell the burdened property by convincing, first himself and then the prospective buyer that the package is a good investment; how can one not become enamored at times of the merit of such a plan?