I maybe be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that really great private gardens vastly outnumber really great public ones because the owners have incentives - the gardens are a reflection on the owner, the owner "owns" any issues that may develop over time, and the owner has an incentive to invest in paying for or learning the expertise required to manage the garden.
They're not funded by the government, they have no mandated allegiance to the government beyond that of your average citizen, and they're awarded no special privileges except by contract between private citizens.
They're a type of bureaucracy, sure; a controlling one even
@rene not sure what you mean? The "linked" section in the siderbar of question contains all question closed as duplicate of that question. There are more though, e.g. mentioned in comments, and this there is MSE feature request to distinguish the different types of linked questions.
When you buy a house in an HOA area, you sign the HOA contract, which says "I agree to [stuff]", and they can do nothing outside of what's written in [stuff]
The only thing that really differentiates it from an HOA is the power to compel by physical force, but even that's a gray line because some HOA's pay for security officers that act like law enforcement.
I was originally comparing HOA's to StackOverflow's meta, where the stakeholders of SO can communicate with the governance of SO, and occassionally have some influence.
I think a lot of people buy into HOA's not realizing what rules they are binding themselves to, but they probably decide it's worth it for a beautiful and safe neighborhood.
Getting along with your neighbors is like getting along with fellow posters on the site, I guess. Sometimes I'm annoyed, but I don't hold grudges, and I remember that no-one gets up in the morning planning how evil they're going to be today. And the more experience on the site I get, the bigger the perspective I have.