That is: that HOA rules and enforcement results in better-maintained properties.
What I have observed as a near-universal property of neighborhoods is that there are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. This always correlates with the quality of the population of the surrounding area, and sometimes (but not always) correlates with its socioeconomic status and property vales.
Anecdotally, where I have seen the most overgrown grass, dogshit, and intra-community hostility, there typically is a HOA present. While one could argue that these communities have an insufficient level of rule enforcement, this is contrary to the reality where some neighbors are constantly surveiling and reporting others and compliance notices and warnings are sent out regularly.
The best neighborhoods, as measured by low crime, well-maintained properties, sense of community, and so-on, are often those without an HOA at all. They tend to be expensive, but aren't necessarily so. Here, a compliance notice or warning is unheard of. Generally, neighbors know and help one another and there is a broad, unspoken social contract concerning the way things ought to be. People do the right thing because they know they ought to, not because someone is holding a big stick over their head.
For maximizing both quality-of-life and net worth, it's therefore a good idea to target these neighborhoods as a primary residence, even if it means allocating significantly more capital to acquire the asset. Going hand-in-hand with this, it is also inherently a good idea to uphold the social contracts and take care of one's own property, as interests are aligned throughout the community.
