I don’t disagree. I think whatever advantages HOA’s may bring are outweighed by the disadvantages, and I don’t know that I agree with the argument that they help maintain home value. At least locally for the past 20 years, home values have increased at a rate that suggests people will buy homes regardless of whether or not the owner mowed their lawn or maintained things well. Market value tends to be based on the land and the home itself, not what the neighbor did. Obviously, there’s exceptions and I’m sure there are horror stories going the other way.That may be something you desire as a home owner, but maintaining your property values is not the job of your neighbor (as long as they don't commit vandalism or such). Also, someone who would object to lack of conformity is not someone you want as a neighbor anyway.
See, I'm approaching this from the axiomatic angle that enforced conformity is bad. There can be good reasons for regulating things (e.g. safety), but conformity is almost never one. This applies to things like dress codes as well: unless there's a good reason for enforcing a particular way of dressing (e.g. a uniform for being immediately identifiable, or safety gear), people should be able to dress however they want.
I also don't want a neighbor with a yard of unconstrained bamboo, kudzu and tree of heaven, eight dogs and a rooster, perpetually boarded up windows, three cars in the yard up on blocks, and razor wire topped 10' fence*. Calling even minimal requirements for upkeep a demand for conformity seems odd to me. But maybe not as odd as a lot of HOA covenants on the other end. And I can certainly see where opening up the can of worms about what is an ok minimal requirements risks bad things and would err on the side of less constraints
Speaking as someone who wishes their neighbor would remove their tree of heaven, HOAs around here are much more concerned with architectural details and whether your siding is clean than what you’ve planted and whether it’s invasive.