*730 Opinion

ZARELLA, J.

The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether a resolution adopted by the board of directors of a condominium association providing that leashes or restraints for household pets shall not exceed twenty feet in length constitutes an illegal amendment of the condominium declaration, which provides that all household pets shall be restrained by leash or other comparable means. The plaintiffs, Thomas P. Weldy and Elizabeth C. Weldy, brought an action to enjoin the defendants, Northbrook Condominium Association, Inc. (association), and the association’s five member board of directors (board), from enforcing the resolution. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s judgment. Weldy v. Northbrook Condominium Assn., Inc., 89 Conn. App. 581, 589, 874 A.2d 296 (2005). On appeal to this court, the defendants claim that the board did not act beyond the scope of its authority in adopting the resolution because it constituted a clarification of, rather than an amendment to, the pet restraint provision in the declaration and thus did not require approval by a two-thirds vote of the unit owners and mortgagees. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. “The plaintiffs own a unit in a development known as North-brook of Monroe, an Expandable Condominium (condominium). . . .

“Article nine of the condominium’s declaration governs ‘use, purposes and restrictions’ of the condominium property. [Article] 9 (e) addresses pet ownership and provides in relevant part that all ‘dogs, cats or *731household pets shall be restrained by leash or other comparable means and shall be accompanied by an owner at all times. . . .’ [Article] 9 © confers on the board ‘the power to make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the intent of [the] use restrictions. . . .’ Pursuant to § 4 (b) (5) of the condominium’s bylaws, the board possesses the power to adopt and amend ‘rules and regulations covering the details of the operation and use of the property, provided, however, that those rules and regulations contained in the [declaration shall be amended in the manner provided for amending the [d]eclaration.’ Article eighteen of the declaration provides that the declaration may be amended only on the vote of two thirds of the unit owners and mortgagees of the condominium.

“On June 27, 2003, the board, by letter, informed the condominium’s owners and residents of ‘new regulations to the pet rules.’ The board cited the previously quoted language from [article] 9 (e) of the declaration and stated that the word ‘leash’ was not defined. It further noted ‘instances where pets have caused injury to other pets’ and the board’s ‘opinion [that] leashes that exceed twenty feet in length do not permit owners to control their dogs sufficiently to ensure the safety of other pets and/or unit owners.’ According to the letter, the board, therefore, had adopted an ‘additional clarification pertaining to pets.’ The ‘clarification’ provided in relevant part that ‘[l]eashes or comparable restraints for dogs, cats or household pets shall not exceed [twenty] feet in length.’

“The plaintiffs own a nine and one-half year old black Labrador retriever. Prior to June 27, 2003, the plaintiffs played ball and Frisbee with and otherwise exercised their dog in a common area behind their unit. To do so, they used a leash that was seventy-five feet in length.

“On July 28,2003, the plaintiffs filed this action, seeking to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the pur*732ported clarification and requesting a finding that the clarification was made without legal authority, is illegal and is of no force or effect. After the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction was denied, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the court . . . granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The court agreed with the defendants that the twenty foot leash requirement constituted a clarification of an existing rule in the declaration rather than an amendment to the rules and, therefore, that the board had not exceeded its authority. It considered the board’s action to have been taken properly pursuant to [article] 9 (Q of the declaration, insofar as it ‘implemented] the intent contained in [article 9 (e)] that animals be “restrained animals.” ’ ” Id., 582-84.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court’s judgment. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case with direction to render judgment for the plaintiffs, concluding that the twenty foot limitation constituted an improper amendment to the condominium declaration in violation of General Statutes § 47-245 (b) of the Common Interest Ownership Act; see generally General Statutes § 47-200 et seq.; and in violation of the provision in the condominium declaration permitting amendments only upon approval by two thirds of all unit owners and mortgagees. See Weldy v. Northbrook Condominium Assn., Inc., supra, 89 Conn. App. 589. The Appellate Court determined that the twenty foot restriction was an amendment to, rather than a clarification of, an ambiguous declaration provision because it added “more particular restrictions” to the leash provision in the declaration defining the rights of condominium owners to have their pets in a common area. Id., 587. We granted the defendants’ petition for *733certification to appeal1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court.

On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court properly determined that the board did not exceed the scope of its authority in adopting the leash restriction. The defendants contend that the intent of the policy in article 9 (e) of the declaration is to promote a safe and nonintimidating environment for unit owners and their guests,2 and that a dog on an excessively long leash cannot be restrained properly in the physically restricted context of a condominium development. Accordingly, the leash restriction gives meaning to, and acts in concert with, the declaration provision. The plaintiffs respond that, because leashes are commonly sold in lengths of thirty to fifty feet, the board in effect illegally amended the declaration by prohibiting leashes more than twenty feet in length. The plaintiffs argue, therefore, that the leash restriction cannot be enforced. We agree with the defendants that the board acted within the scope of its authority in adopting the restriction.

We begin our analysis by setting forth the applicable standard of review. Practice Book § 17-49 provides in relevant part that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” “In deciding a motion *734for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as amatter of law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Leisure Resort Technology, Inc. v. Trading Cove Associates, 277 Conn. 21, 30-31, 889 A.2d 785 (2006). “On appeal, we must determine whether the legal conclusions reached by the trial court are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision of the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aselton v. East Hartford, 277 Conn. 120, 130, 890 A.2d 1250 (2006). “[0]ur review of the trial court’s decision to grant the . . . motion for summary judgment is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Buccino, 273 Conn. 217, 227, 869 A.2d 626 (2005).

“When a court is called upon to assess the validity of [an action taken] by a board of directors, it first determines whether the board acted within its scope of authority and, second, whether the [action] reflects reasoned or arbitrary and capricious decision making.” Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, 448 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla. App. 1984); cf. Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., 21 Cal. 4th 249, 256, 980 P.2d 940, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 237 (1999). Because the plaintiffs do not contend that the leash restriction itself is unreasonable, the only issue before the court is whether the board exceeded the scope of its authority in adopting the restriction. We therefore turn to an examination of the relevant statutory provisions.

Condominium developments are of relatively recent origin and provide a unique type of shelter that affords some of the benefits of property ownership without the *735corresponding burdens. Gentry v. Norwalk, 196 Conn. 596, 603, 494 A.2d 1206 (1985). The statutory scheme in Connecticut governing condominium developments is the Common Interest Ownership Act (act).3 See generally General Statutes § 47-200 et seq. The act “is a comprehensive legislative scheme regulating all forms of common interest ownership that is largely modeled on the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.” Nicotra Wieler Investment Management, Inc. v. Grower, 207 Conn. 441, 447, 541 A.2d 1226 (1988). See generally Unif. Common Interest Ownership Act of 1994, 7 U.L.A. 835 (2005). The act addresses “the creation, organization and management of common interest communities and contemplates the voluntary participation of the owners. It entails the drafting and tiling of a declaration describing the location and configuration of the real property, development rights, and restrictions on its use, occupancy and alienation; General Statutes §§ 47-220, 47-224; the enactment of bylaws; General Statutes § 47-248 . . . the establishment of a unit owners’ association [to manage the condominium community]; General Statutes § 47-243; and an executive board to act on . . . behalf [of the association]. General Statutes § 47-245. It anticipates group decision-making relating to the development of a budget, the maintenance and repair of the common elements, the placement of insurance, and the provision for common expenses and common liabilities. General Statutes §§ 47-244, 47-245, 47-255, 47-249.” Wilcox v. Willard Shopping Center Associates, 208 Conn. 318, 326-27, 544 A.2d 1207 (1988).

Several provisions of the act are of particular significance in the present case. Except in certain designated *736situations, a declaration may be amended “only by vote or agreement of unit owners of units to which at least sixty-seven per cent of the votes in the association are allocated . . . .” General Statutes § 47-236 (a). A condominium association also is empowered, subject to the declaration provisions, to “[a]dopt and amend bylaws and rules and regulations”; General Statutes § 47-244 (1); and to “[r]egulate the use ... of common elements . . . .” General Statutes § 47-244 (6). The condominium’s board of directors is not permitted, however, to amend the declaration on behalf of the association. See General Statutes § 47-245 (b).

With the foregoing statutory framework as a backdrop, we turn to an examination of the relevant condominium documents in order to determine whether the board was empowered to adopt the leash restriction for the purpose of clarifying the declaration. This issue presents a question of law that we review de novo. See, e.g., 15A Am. Jur. 2d 780, Condominiums and Cooperative Apartments § 8 (2000).

The board adopted the leash restriction pursuant to article 9 (e) and (l) of the condominium declaration and § 4 (b) (5) of the condominium bylaws. Article 9 (e) provides in relevant part: “All . . . dogs, cats or household pets shall be restrained by leash or other comparable means and shall be accompanied by an owner at all times.” Article 9 (i) vests the board with authority “to make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the intent of [the] use restrictions [in the declaration].” Section 4 (b) (5) of the condominium bylaws authorizes the board to adopt and amend “rules and regulations covering the details of the operation and use of the property . . . .”

The leash restriction that the board adopted on June 27,2003,4 specifically provides: “Leashes or comparable *737restraints for dogs, cats or household pets shall not exceed [twenty] feet in length. Pets must be materially attached to the owner in order to be restrained. It is the responsibility of every owner of a cat, dog, or other household pet to restrain that pet while in the [c]ommon [a]rea. Further, it is the specific responsibility of the owner of any pet with an anti-social personality to avoid a conflict with other residents or pets in the community.”

Because the issue on appeal is one of first impression, we look for guidance to other jurisdictions that have considered the limits of a board’s delegated authority to enact regulations governing a condominium community. With respect to the interpretation of declaration provisions, several jurisdictions have recognized that the declaration is the condominium association’s “constitution.” Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, supra, 448 So. 2d 1145; accord Schaefer v. Eastman Community Assn., 150 N.H. 187, 191, 836 A.2d 752 (2003). “Generally, declarations and other governing documents contain broad statements of general policy with due notice that the board of directors is empowered to implement these policies and address day-today problems in the [association’s] operation. . . . Thus, the declaration should not be so narrowly construed so as to eviscerate the association’s intended role as the governing body of the community. Rather, a broad view of the powers delegated to the association is justified by the important role these communities play in maintaining property values and providing municipal-like services .... If unable to act, the common prop*738erty may fall into disrepair. ... [2 Restatement (Third), Property, Servitudes § 6.4, p. 90, comment (a) (2000)] ....

“Because an association’s power should be interpreted broadly, the association, through its appropriate governing body, is entitled to exercise all powers of the community except those reserved to the members. [Id., § 6.16, p. 289].” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schaefer v. Eastman Community Assn., supra, 150 N.H. 191.

This broad view of the powers delegated to the condominium’s board of directors is consistent with the principle “inherent in the condominium concept . . . that to promote the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the majority of the unit owners since they are living in such close proximity and using facilities in common, each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property. Condominium unit owners comprise a little democratic sub society of necessity more restrictive as it pertains to [the] use of condominium property than may be existent outside the condominium organization.” Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, 309 So. 2d 180, 181-82 (Fla. App. 1975).

Accordingly, the standard of review most commonly employed in reviewing a board’s authority to adopt rules or regulations is that, “provided ... a board-enacted rule does not contravene either an express provision of the declaration or a right reasonably inferable therefrom, it will be found valid, within the scope of the board’s authority. This test ... is fair and functional; it safeguards the rights of unit owners and preserves unfettered the concept of delegated board management.” Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, supra, 448 So. 2d 1145; cf. Meadow Bridge Condominium Assn. v. Bosca, 187 Mich. App. 280, 282, 466 N.W.2d *739303 (1990) (“a rule or regulation is a tool to implement or manage existing structural law, while an amendment presumptively changes existing structural law” [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Applying these principles in the present case, we conclude that the twenty foot leash limitation is not more restrictive than the declaration but simply implements the declaration’s expressed intent that household pets brought to the common areas of the property be restrained properly and controlled by their owners at all times. An excessively long leash would not achieve this objective within the limited confines of the walkways, parking lots, landscaped and recreational areas that typically comprise the common elements of a condominium development because a pet attached to a seventy-five foot leash would have the ability to stray far from its owner, especially if the owner’s attention was diverted from the pet. This could endanger persons walking between the owner and the pet as well as persons and vehicles moving in a parking lot or accessway that must take evasive action to avoid a darting animal. Consequently, the leash restriction does not contravene an express provision of the declaration but is a means of implementing the policy embodied therein by increasing the likelihood that a pet will remain under its owner’s control, thereby contributing to “a safe and non-intimidating environment for unit owners and their guests.”

This conclusion finds support in other cases in which courts have determined that the board of directors acted within the scope of its authority in regulating an activity specifically addressed in the declaration or bylaws. See, e.g., O’Buck v. Cottonwood Village Condominium Assn., Inc., 750 P.2d 813, 815-17 (Alaska 1988) (board acted within scope of authority in banning television antennas on buildings because declaration authorized board to adopt rules and regulations governing use *740of common areas, including roofs and walls of buildings, and to require action by owners to preserve uniform exterior building appearance); Meadow Bridge Condominium Assn. v. Bosca, supra, 187 Mich. App. 281-83 (board empowered to adopt regulation prospectively prohibiting new dogs because bylaws provided that no animals could be maintained by owner without specific approval by association, and bylaws authorized association “to adopt such additional rules and regulations with respect to animals as it may deem proper” [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Correspondingly, the present case is distinguishable from cases in which courts have concluded that the board was not empowered to act because the regulation in question conflicted with an express provision in the declaration. See, e.g., In re 560 Ocean Club, L.P., 133 B.R. 310, 317-18 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1991) (board not authorized to adopt regulation requiring minimum of ninety days during summer months and thirty days at other times for short-term leases because declaration merely granted board power to approve or disapprove leases, not to restrict their duration); Westbridge Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lawrence, 554 A.2d 1163, 1164, 1167 (D.C. 1989) (board exceeded scope of authority in imposing move-in fee on unit owner because declaration provided only one method for assessing common elements expenses, consisting of pro rata allocation of costs among all unit owners, thereby limiting board’s power to impose move-in fee under alternative method of assessment); Mohnani v. La Cancha Condominium Assn., Inc., 590 So. 2d 36, 38 (Fla. App. 1991) (board not empowered to adopt regulation that owner could not lease unit for two years following acquisition because regulation contravened declaration provision and rights reasonably inferable therefrom that owners could lease units upon board approval within thirty days following board’s receipt of written notice from *741owner of intent to lease); Thanasoulis v. Winston Towers 200 Assn., Inc., 110 N.J. 650, 659-60, 542 A.2d 900 (1988) (board acted beyond scope of authority in adopting rule charging nonresident owners higher monthly parking fees than resident owners because master deed provided that right of unit owner to use common elements, including parking spaces, was indivisible from owner’s interest in condominium itself, and rule thus constituted “change [in] a unit” within meaning of relevant statute by severing owner’s property right to parking space [internal quotation marks omitted]); Ronaldson v. Countryside Manor Condominium Board of Managers, 189 App. Div. 2d 808, 808-809, 592 N.Y.S.2d 459 (board acted outside scope of authority in adopting regulation permitting unit owners to build six foot fences to enclose property at rear of respective units because declaration provided that common elements included entire property, including enclosed areas), appeal dismissed, 82 N.Y.2d 706, 619 N.E.2d 663, 601 N.Y.S.2d 585 (1993); Sully Station II Community Assn., Inc. v. Dye, 259 Va. 282, 285, 289, 525 S.E.2d 555 (2000) (board exceeded authority in adopting parking policy under which two reserved parking spaces in common area were assigned to owners of nongaraged units because policy constituted licensing of portion of common area, and declaration granted association right to license those parking spaces to members only on uniform, nonpreferential basis).

The plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the leash restriction is inconsistent with the relevant declaration provision because the twenty foot limitation redefines and changes the everyday meaning of the word “leash,” a term applied to restraints sold commercially in lengths of thirty, fifty and even seventy-five feet. We disagree.

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word “leash” as “a thong, cord or chain attached to an animal’s collar . . . and held in the hand for the *742purpose of leading, checking, or controlling the . . . animal or fastened to an object to secure or tether it . . . .” The twenty foot leash restriction does not add to or change the general provision of the declaration that pets must be controlled in the common areas of the property, nor does it redefine the everyday meaning of the word “leash.” It merely ensures that a leash will be more likely to achieve its purpose in a high density residential setting because it will prevent a pet from straying more than twenty feet from its owner. See Meadow Bridge Condominium Assn. v. Bosca, supra, 187 Mich. App. 282 (regulation prospectively prohibiting new dogs on condominium property did not constitute amendment because it was “not inconsistent with the original bylaw and [did] nothing to change the general rule”). The twenty foot leash restriction is therefore consistent with the declaration.

The plaintiffs also argue that the leash restriction deprives unit owners of a right reasonably inferred from the language of the declaration to restrain their pets on a longer leash. See, e.g., Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, supra, 448 So. 2d 1145 (board rule invalid if in contravention of right reasonably inferable from provision of declaration). The plaintiffs argue that the principle that communal living requires individuals to give “fair consideration ... to the rights and privileges of all owners and occupants” of the community; Dulaney Towers Maintenance Corp. v. O’Brey, 46 Md. App. 464, 466, 418 A.2d 1233 (1980); does not apply in this case because they exercise their dog in a secluded area of the property and thus do not interfere with other persons or animals, even though the leash they use is seventy-five feet in length. This claim has no merit.

We first note the obvious fact that the declaration provision is restrictive in nature because it seeks to protect unit owners from unnecessary inconvenience *743and annoyance by unrestrained pets through the imposition of a physical restraint and by requiring that pets be accompanied by their owners at all times. We also recognize that leashes are sold in varying lengths. The fact that the plaintiffs’ dog does not interfere with others has no bearing, however, on whether a reasonable inference may be drawn from the declaration that unit owners have a right to use a leash of virtually any length when permitting their pets to walk, run or otherwise traverse across and exercise within the common areas of the property. At some point, depending on the circumstances, a leash beyond a certain length ceases to function as an effective restraint. Similarly, to the extent that the declaration mandates that a pet be “accompanied” by its owner, a pet that has wandered seventy-five feet from its owner, even if attached to a very long leash, can hardly be said, in most situations, to be “accompanied by” and under the control of the owner. In the present case, the board determined that, in light of the physical limitations of the condominium setting in question, a leash of more than twenty feet could not perform as intended. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claim must fail because the condominium declaration, which seeks to impose a measure of control over pets on the property, does not support an inference that a leash of any length can fulfill its anticipated purpose merely because one end of the leash is attached to the collar of a pet and the other is held by the owner.

Two cases on which the plaintiffs rely, namely, In re 560 Ocean Club, L.P., and Mohnani, are inapposite. In the foimer case, the court determined that the board of directors acted beyond the scope of its authority when it imposed a requirement that all short-term leases be at least ninety days during the summer months and thirty days during other times because the declaration did not address restrictions on the duration of leases *744but merely granted the board authority to approve or disapprove the leases. In re 560 Ocean Club, L.P., supra, 133 B.R. 317-18. In the latter case, the court concluded that the board exceeded its authority in adopting a regulation that owners could not lease their units for a period of two years from the date on which ownership was acquired because the regulation was inconsistent with the declaration and rights reasonably inferable therefrom. See Mohnani v. La Cancha Condominium Assn., Inc., supra, 590 So. 2d 38. The declaration specified that owners could lease their units following written notice to the board of their intent to do so, and that the board was required within thirty days to approve the transaction or to furnish a lessee approved by the association, thus conceivably allowing an owner to lease the unit within thirty days of acquiring ownership. See id. These cases are distinguishable because the regulations adopted by the respective boards clearly conflicted with the governing declaration provisions. That is not the situation in the present case for all of the reasons that we previously have discussed. We therefore conclude that the board acted within the scope of its authority in adopting the resolution restricting the length of leashes to no more than twenty feet pursuant to article 9 (I) of the condominium declaration.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

ANSTEAD, J.

We have for review Woodside Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Jahren, 754 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), which expressly and directly conflicts with White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979), Flagler Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Crestview Towers Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 596 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and Seagate Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Duffy, 330 So.2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we quash the district court’s decision invalidating certain restrictions on leasing set out in the petitioner’s Declaration of Condominium.

FACTS

At issue is the validity of amendments to the Declaration of Condominium adopted by the condominium owners which restrict the leasing of units in Woodside Village. Woodside Village is a condominium development located in Clearwater, Florida, consisting of 288 units. It was established in 1979 pursuant to Florida’s “Condominium Act,” chapter 718, Florida Statutes (1977). Petitioner, Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”), is the condominium association that was formed pursuant to the Declaration of Condominium of Woodside Village (“Declaration”), recorded in the public records of Pinellas County. Respondents, Adolph S. Jahren and Gary M. McClernan, each own residential condominium units in Woodside Village.1

The original Declaration of Condominium for Woodside Village included a provision regarding leasing:

10.3 Leasing. The apartment may be leased or rented without prior approval, for any period of one (1) year or less, and may be leased by successive leases for periods in excess of one (1) year without -the approval of the Board of Directors of the Association. In the event apartment owner leases to a lessee for a period of one (1) year or less and the apartment owner and lessee desire to extend that lease for a term of one (1) year or less, said extension shall not require the approval of the Association. However, if the Association finds during the term of any such lease that the lessee has violated the rules and regulations of the Association or the terms and provisions of the Declaration of Condominium of Woodside Village or other documents governing Woodside Village, a Condominium, or that the les*454see has otherwise been the cause of a nuisance or annoyance to the residents of Woodside Village, then the Association may so notify lessor of its disapproval of such lessee in 'writing and lessor shall be precluded from extending any lease to said lessee without the written approval of the Association.

Further, section 11.1(b) stated: “Lease. No apartment owner may dispose of an apartment or any interest therein for a term in excess of one (1) year without approval of the Board of Directors of the Association.” Thus, while leasing was permitted under the original Declaration, initial leases in excess of one year were subject to board approval. In addition, section 10.3 was amended in 1995 to require that all leases and renewals receive prior approval from the Board of Directors.

In 1997 some owners became concerned that units were increasingly becoming non-owner occupied, and that such a condition would have a negative impact on the quality of life in Woodside Village and on the market value of units. Accordingly, section 10.3 was amended in March of 1997 to limit the leasing of units to a term of no more than nine months in any twelvemonth period. A provision was also added prohibiting owners from leasing their units during the first twelve months of ownership. These amendments were adopted by a vote of at least two-thirds of the unit owners as required by the Declaration. As amended, section 10.3 provides:

10.3 Leasing. All leases, subleases or assignments of leases and all renewals of such agreements shall be first submitted to the Board of Directors for approval or disapproval. No record owner or owners of units in this condominium shall rent or lease more than three of their units at any one time. No lease of an owner or owners who have three units rented or leased shall be approved by the Association. No unit may be rented for more than a total of nine (9) months in any twelve (12) month period. However, if the Association finds during the term of any such lease that the lessee has violated the rules and regulations of the Association or the terms and provisions of the Declaration of Condominium of Woodside Village or other documents governing Woodside Village, a Condominium, or that the lessee has otherwise been the cause of a nuisance or annoyance to the residents of Woodside Village, then the Association may so notify lessor of its disapproval of such lessee in writing and lessor shall be precluded from extending any lease to said lessee without the written approval of the Association.

No owner shall enter into a lease, rental agreement, or other similar conveyance of use of a unit during the first twelve (12) months of ownership of that unit.

(Emphasis added.) The following year the Association notified respondents in writing that two of their respective units were not in compliance with the nine-month lease restriction set out in section 10.3 as amended.

When the respondents failed to come into compliance with the leasing restrictions, the Association filed complaints in circuit court seeking injunctions to enforce compliance with the provisions of the Declaration. Respondents filed essentially identical answers admitting notice of their failure to comply with section 10.3, but denying that compliance could be mandated under Florida law. In addition, respondents filed counterclaims for declaratory and injunctive relief asserting that the lease restriction was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, and had no purpose other than to effectively ban all leasing of units. Respondents also assert*455ed the lease restriction was confiscatory and deprived them of lawful uses which were permissible at the time of purchase. Accordingly, respondents sought an injunction prohibiting the Association from enforcing the lease restriction or, alternatively, requiring the Association to compensate respondents for the fair market value of their units.

Thereafter, the Association and respondents filed separate motions for summary judgment.2 Following a hearing on the parties’ motions, the circuit court granted summary judgment in respondents’ favor. Although the circuit court acknowledged that the Association has the authority to pass an amendment restricting the leasing of units, it concluded that the lease restriction at issue impermissibly “creates more than one class of ownership because it cannot be applied retroactively against unit owners who purchased their unit prior to the date of the amendment.” The court ruled that the Association would be required to purchase respondents’ units if it decided to enforce the nine-month lease restriction retroactively.

On appeal, the Second District affirmed the trial court’s final summary judgment and held that the lease restriction could not be enforced because it was adopted after the respondents acquired their units and no significant lease restrictions existed when respondents purchased their units. See Woodside Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Jahren, 754 So.2d 831, 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The court acknowledged that the lease restrictions would be valid if they predated the respondents’ purchase of units. See id. at 832-33. In its analysis, the court rejected the reasoning of Flagler Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Crestview Towers Condominium Ass’n, 595 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and distinguished Seagate Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Duffy, 330 So.2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), wherein the Third and Fourth Districts upheld the validity of amendments to condominium declarations imposing additional lease restrictions on existing unit owners. See id. at 833-35.3 The district court also cited an accommodation for leasing that Woodside Village made in a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of the handicapped as additional support for its holding. See id. at 835-36.

ANALYSIS

Condominiums and the forms of ownership interests therein are strictly creatures of statute. See §§ 718.101-718.622, Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Winkelman v. Toll, 661 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Suntide Condominium Ass’n v. Division of Florida Land Sales & Condominiums, 463 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In Florida, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, known as Florida’s “Condominium Act,” gives statutory recognition to the condominium form of ownership of real property and establishes a detailed scheme for the creation, sale, and operation of condominiums. Pursuant to section 718.104(2), a condominium is created by recording a declaration of condominium in the public records of the county where the land is located. See § 718.104(2), Fla. Stat. (2000).

*456The declaration, which some courts have referred to as the condominium’s “constitution,”4 strictly governs the relationships among the condominium unit owners and the condominium association. As explained by the court in Pepe v. Whispering Sands Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 351 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977):

A declaration of a condominium is more than a mere contract spelling out mutual rights and obligations of the parties thereto — it assumes some of the attributes of a covenant running with the land, circumscribing the extent and limits of the enjoyment and use of real property. Stated otherwise, it spells out the true extent of the purchased, and thus granted, use interest therein. Absent consent, or an amendment of the declaration of condominium as may be provided for in such declaration, or as may be provided by statute in the absence of such a provision, this enjoyment and use cannot be impaired or diminished.

Id. at 757-58 (footnotes omitted). Hence, because condominiums are a creature of statute courts must look to the statutory scheme as well as the condominium declaration and other documents to determine the legal rights of owners and the association. See §§ 718.101-718.622, Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Shorewood West Condominium Ass’n v. Sadri, 140 Wash.2d 47, 992 P.2d 1008, 1012 (2000) (noting that the property rights condominium unit owners have in their units are creations of condominium statute and are subject to the statute, the declaration, the association’s bylaws, and amendments to the declaration and bylaws).

From the outset, courts have recognized that condominium living is unique and involves a greater degree of restrictions upon the rights of the individual unit owners when compared to other property owners. See Seagate Condominium Ass’n, 330 So.2d at 486 (citing cases). For instance, in White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979), we recognized that “[rjeasonable restrictions concerning use, occupancy and transfer of condominium units are necessary for the operation and protection of the owners in the condominium concept.” Id. at 350. In White Egret, we quoted favorably from Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, 309 So.2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), to further explain the restrictive nature of condominium ownership and living:

[IJnherent in the condominium concept is the principle that to promote the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the majority of the unit owners since they are living in such close proximity and using facilities in common, each unit owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property. Condominium unit owners comprise a little democratic sub society of necessity more restrictive as it pertains to use of condominium property than may be existent outside the condominium organization.

White Egret, 379 So.2d at 350. Consistent with this analysis of condominium ownership, courts have acknowledged that “increased controls and limitations upon the rights of unit owners to transfer their property are necessary concomitants of condominium living.” Aquarian Foundation, Inc. v. Sholom House, Inc., 448 So.2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Indeed, section 718.104(5), Florida Statutes (2000), expressly recognizes that a declaration of condominium may contain restrictions concerning the use, occupancy, and transfer of units. See § 718.104(5), Fla. Stat. (2000).

*457Courts have also consistently recognized that restrictions contained within a declaration of condominium should be clothed with a very strong presumption of validity when challenged. The logic behind this presumption was explained in Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), wherein the court reasoned:

There are essentially two categories of cases in which a condominium association attempts to enforce rules of restrictive uses. The first category is that dealing with the validity of restrictions found in the declaration of condominium itself. The second category of cases involves the validity of rules promulgated by the association’s board of directors or the refusal of the board of directors to allow a particular use when the board is invested with the power to grant or deny a particular use.

In the first category, the restrictions are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity which arises from the fact that each individual unit owner purchases his unit knowing of and accepting the restrictions to be imposed. Such restrictions are very much in the nature of covenants running with the land and they will not be invalidated absent a showing that they are wholly arbitrary in their application, in violation of public policy, or that they abrogate some fundamental constitutional right. See White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979).

Id. at 639-40 (emphasis added).

AMENDMENTS TO DECLARATION

Significantly, section 718.110 also provides broad authority for amending a declaration of condominium. In particular, section 718.110(l)(a) provides:

If the declaration fails to provide a method of amendment, the declaration may be amended as to all matters except those listed in subsection (4) or subsection (8) if the amendment is approved by the owners of not less than two-thirds of the units. Except as to those matters described in subsection (4) or subsection (8), no declaration recorded after April 1, 1992, shall require that amendments be approved by, more than four-fifths of the voting interests.

§ 718.110(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). Based upon this broad statutory authority and the provisions for amendment set out in the declaration of condominium, courts have recognized the authority of condominium unit owners to amend the declaration on a wide variety of issues, including restrictions on leasing. Of course, section 718.110(l)(a) itself contains some restrictions on the amendment process. For example, pursuant to subsections (4) and (8), all unit owners must consent to amendments which materially alter or modify the size, configuration or appurtenances to the unit, change the percentage by which the unit owner shares the common expenses and owns the common surplus of the condominium, or permit timeshare estates to be created in any unit of the condominium, unless otherwise provided in the declaration as originally recorded. See § 718.110(4), (8), Fla. Stat. (2000). These provisions are not at issue here.

SEAGATE

In Seagate Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Duffy, 330 So.2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), the court upheld an amendment to the declaration of condominium prohibiting leasing of any units, except for limited periods in cases of hardship. The amendment provided:

As previously stated, it is the intent that the owner of each unit of Seagate Towers Condominium shall occupy and use *458such unit as a private dwelling for himself and his immediate family, and for no other purpose including business purposes. Therefore, the leasing of units to others as a regular practice for business, speculative, investment or other similar purposes is not permitted.

To meet special situations and to avoid undue hardship or practical difficulties the Board of Directors may grant permission to an owner to lease his unit to a specified lessee for a period not less than four consecutive months nor more than twelve consecutive months.

Id. at 484-85. The trial court held that the amendment was both an unreasonable restriction and an unlawful restraint on alienation and awarded damages for lost rents to the unit owners who challenged the amendment. See id. at 485. On appeal, the Fourth District reversed, and explained:

It is our opinion that appellant’s leasing restriction constitutes neither an unlimited nor unreasonable restraint on alienation. The restriction is not unlimited in several respects: it prohibits only a specific form of alienation, i.e., leasing; under general but not unlimited circumstances, i.e., the condominium association will consider its suspension in hardship for a not unlimited period of time, i.e., because it can be terminated at any time by a vote of the condominium unit owners pursuant to the amendment provisions of their Declaration of Condominium. The restriction, moreover, is reasonable. Given the unique problems of condominium living in general and the special problems endemic to a tourist oriented community in South Florida in particular, appellant’s avowed objective — to inhibit transiency and to impart a certain degree of continuity of residence and a residential character to their community — is, we believe, a reasonable one, achieved in a not unreasonable manner by means of the restrictive provision in question. The attainment of this community goal outweighs the social value of retaining for the individual unit owner the absolutely unqualified right to dispose of his property in any way and for such duration or purpose as he alone so desires.

Id. at 486-87 (footnote omitted). The district court upheld the amendment even as it was applied to unit owners who acquired their units prior to the amendments.

FLAGLER FEDERAL

In Flagler Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Crestview Towers Condominium Ass’n, 595 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the court also addressed a declaration amendment prohibiting leasing as applied to an owner who acquired title to a unit prior to the amendment. The original declaration provided that unit owners could not lease their units without the express approval of the association, but excluded from the leasing restriction institutional mortgagees acquiring title. While this provision was in effect, Flagler Federal became the mortgagee on units 216 and 503. Subsequently, the declaration was amended to prohibit leasing entirely and eliminated the previous exclusion for institutional mortgagees acquiring title. In 1987, Flagler Federal acquired title to unit 503 by purchasing the unit at a foreclosure sale and acquired title to unit 216 when the mortgagors gave it a quitclaim deed in lieu of foreclosure. Thereafter, when the association objected to Flagler Federal’s attempt to lease the units, the bank filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court denied the bank’s claim and granted the association a final summary judgment upholding the lease restriction as amended.

On appeal, the Third District affirmed, holding that both units were bound by the *459amendment to the declaration. First, the court rejected Flagler Federal’s argument that title to unit 216, acquired by quitclaim deed in lieu of foreclosure, related back to the date of the mortgage. See id. at 220. Thus, the court found that the operative date for determining the applicability of the declaration amendment to unit 216 was the date of the quitclaim deed. See id. The court noted that when Flagler Federal acquired title by quitclaim deed the amended declaration was in effect. Further, the court stated Flagler Federal had notice of the recorded declaration and its amendment provisions when it mortgaged the unit and acquired the unit. Accordingly, the court concluded that Flagler Federal could not complain that the declaration amendment was binding on unit 216. See id.

Although Flagler Federal’s title to unit 503 related back to the date of its mortgage, the court held it was nonetheless bound by the subsequent declaration amendment prohibiting leasing. See id. at 200. In so doing, the court recognized that restrictions found in a declaration “are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity which arises from the fact that each individual unit owner purchases his unit knowing of and accepting the restrictions to be imposed.” Id. (quoting Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So.2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)). As to the effect of the subsequent amendment, the court reasoned that since Fla-gler Federal was on notice of the recorded declaration’s provisions for amendments to the declaration when it issued the mortgage, it, like other unit owners who acquired title prior to the amendment, was bound by the subsequent amendments to the declaration. See id.

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

We note that the majority of courts in other jurisdictions have held that a duly adopted amendment restricting either occupancy or leasing is binding upon unit owners who purchased their units before the amendment was effective. See Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Ass’n, 81 Cal.App.3d 688, 146 Cal.Rptr. 695, 700 (1978); Hill v. Fontaine Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 255 Ga. 24, 334 S.E.2d 690, 691 (1985); Apple II Condominium Ass’n v. Worth Bank & Trust Co., 277 Ill.App.3d 345, 213 Ill.Dec. 463, 659 N.E.2d 93 (1995); Breezy Point Holiday Harbor Lodge-Beachside Apartment Owners’ Ass’n v. B.P. P’ship, 531 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.Ct. App.1995) (in dicta); McElveen-Hunter v. Fountain Manor Ass’n, Inc., 96 N.C.App. 627, 386 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1989), aff'd, 328 N.C. 84, 399 S.E.2d 112 (1991); Shorewood West Condominium Ass’n v. Sadri, 140 Wash.2d 47, 992 P.2d 1008, 1012 (2000); cf. Burgess v. Pelkey, 738 A.2d 783, 788 (D.C. 1999); but see 560 Ocean Club, L.P. v. Ocean Club Condominium Ass’n (In re 560 Ocean Club, L.P.), 133 B.R. 310, 320 (Bankr.D.N.J.1991); Breene v. Plaza Tower Ass’n, 310 N.W.2d 730, 734 (N.D.1981).

An appellate opinion from Illinois is illustrative of these decisions. In Apple II Condominium Ass’n v. Worth Bank & Trust Co., the Illinois appellate court applied the Fourth District’s analysis in Basso in upholding the validity of a declaration amendment which restricted leasing of units to no more than once during ownership, with no lease exceeding twelve months. In enforcing the amendment, the court declared:

The Condominium Property Act specifically states that amendments to the Declaration “shall be deemed effective upon recordation unless the amendment sets forth a different effective date.” (765 ILCS 605/17 (West 1994).) In our view, neither the fact that there were no restrictions on the property when the Harmons purchased their unit nor the *460fact that the Harmons purchased the property for investment purposes is relevant to the proper resolution of the issues presented in this case. As purchasers of the condominium property, the Harmons are charged with knowledge of the Condominium Property Act and that the Declaration governing their unit was subject to amendment. Section 18.4(h) of the Act specifically recognizes that the Board may implement rules governing the “use of the property,” so long as the restrictions do not impair those rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or the Free Speech provisions of the Illinois Constitution. (See 765 ILCS 605/18.400 (West 1994).) In the absence of a provision either in the Amendment or in the original Declaration, condominium owners do not have vested rights in the status quo ante. See Crest Builders, Inc. v. Willow Falls Improvement Association (1979), 74 Ill. App.3d 420, 30 Ill.Dec. 452, 393 N.E.2d 107 (party challenging amendment has no vested interest in the Declaration as originally written); McElveen-Hunter v. Fountain Manor Association, Inc. (1989), 96 N.C.App. 627, 386 S.E.2d 435 (noting that most courts have adopted the “sounder view” that changes to a condominium declaration are binding upon both previous and subsequent owners).

Apple II Condominium Ass’n, 213 Ill.Dec. 463, 659 N.E.2d at 97. The court further reasoned that the approval of the amendment by the association’s membership made the leasing restriction a “category one” restriction under Basso, thereby elevating the level of deference given by the court. See id. at 98. Accordingly, the court concluded that when an amendment has been passed by an association’s membership it would presume the restriction was valid and uphold it unless it was shown that the restriction was arbitrary, against public policy, or in violation of some fundamental constitutional right. See id. at 98-99.

We agree with this reasoning. To hold otherwise, we would have to conclude that the right to amend a declaration of condominium is substantially limited, well beyond those limitations imposed by the Legislature in section 718.110(4) and (8). We would also be faced with the difficult task of deciding what subjects could be addressed by the amendment process, a task much better suited for the Legislature, as can be seen by its imposition of restrictions in section 718.110.

THIS CASE

Respondents in this case purchased their units subject to the Declaration which expressly provides that it can be amended and sets forth the procedure for doing so. See Providence Square Ass’n v. Biancardi, 507 So.2d 1366, 1372 (Fla.1987) (noting that condominium purchasers are charged with notice of the recorded documents). Section 14 of the Declaration generally provides that an amendment may be adopted by a supermajority of two-thirds of the owners.5 Further, section 13 expressly states that each owner shall be governed by the Declaration as amended from time to time;

*46113. Compliance and Default. Each apartment owner shall be governed by and shall comply with the terms of this Declaration, the By-Laws and the Rules and Regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and Management Agreement, and said documents as they may be amended from time to time. Failure of the apartment owner to comply therewith shall entitle the Association or other apartment owners to the following relief in addition to other remedies provided in this Declaration and the Condominium Act....

(Emphasis added.) In addition, the legal description for each of respondents’ units that were allegedly being used in violation of the lease restriction provides that the units are subject to the restrictions contained in the Declaration and subsequent amendments thereto.6

Thus, we find that respondents were on notice that the unique form of ownership they acquired when they purchased their units in the Woodside Village Condominium was subject to change through the amendment process, and that they would be bound by properly adopted amendments. See Kroop v. Caravelle Condominium, Inc., 323 So.2d 307, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (upholding restriction limiting leasing to once during ownership where condominium owner acquired unit with knowledge that the declaration might thereafter be lawfully amended); see also Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Ass’n, 81 Cal.App.3d 688, 146 Cal.Rptr. 695, 700 (1978) (noting that declaration provided bylaws could be amended and that purchaser would be subject to any reasonable amendment properly adopted); McElveen-Hunter v. Fountain Manor Ass’n, Inc., 96 N.C.App. 627, 386 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1989), aff'd, 328 N.C. 84, 399 S.E.2d 112 (1991) (noting that plaintiff acquired her units subject to the right of other owners to restrict their occupancy through properly enacted amendments to the declaration); Worthinglen Condominium Unit Owners’ Ass’n v. Brown, 57 Ohio App.3d 73, 566 N.E.2d 1275, 1277 (1989) (stating that purchasers of condominium units should realize that the regime in existence at the time of purchase may not continue indefinitely and that changes in the declaration may take the form of restrictions on the unit owners’ use of their property); cf. Burgess v. Pelkey, 738 A.2d 783, 789 (D.C.1999) (stating unit owner was on notice at time of purchase of the possibility that his rights in the cooperative could be affected by subsequent changes in the cooperative’s bylaws and house rules).

It is also uncontradicted that the Association acted within the framework of the Declaration in adopting the amendment at issue. As noted above, the Declaration for Woodside Village specifically provides for amendment and sets forth the procedure for doing so. Further, pursuant to the Declaration, the amendment imposing the nine-month lease restriction was approved *462by at least two-thirds of the condominium unit owners. Hence, we conclude that the lease restriction amendment was properly enacted under the amendment provisions of the Declaration, and that the respondents took title to their units subject to the amendment provision set out in the Declaration and authorized by statute.

We also conclude that the respondents have failed to demonstrate that the restriction, in and of itself, violates public policy or respondents’ constitutional rights, at least as asserted herein. See Apple II Condominium, Ass’n, 213 Ill.Dec. 463, 659 N.E.2d at 98-99. The respondents have simply failed to point out any provision in the statutory scheme for condominiums or any provision in the state or federal constitutions that would bar such lease restrictions. It is apparent from the circumstances giving rise to its adoption that the amendment was intended to promote owner occupancy of the condominium units, a goal certainly consistent with the concept of condominium living as originally contemplated by the legislation authorizing the condominium form of land ownership. Although a different restriction could have been adopted to better promote owner occupancy within the condominium, we cannot conclude that the amendment restricting leases to nine months in any twelvemonth period is arbitrary in its attempt to achieve this goal. As discussed above, most such restrictions simply come with the unique territory of condominium ownership. Indeed, it is restrictions such as these that distinguish condominium living from rental apartments or single-family residences. Hence, persons acquiring units in condominiums are on constructive notice of the extensive restrictions that go with this unique, and some would say, restrictive, form of residential property ownership and living. Accordingly, we conclude the amendment is valid and enforceable against respondents..

ABILITIES AMENDMENT

Petitioner maintains that the district court also erred in concluding that a subsequent amendment to the Declaration known as the “Abilities Amendment,” when viewed together with the nine-month lease restriction, impermissibly created two classes of condominium unit ownership.7 As reflected in the decision below, Abilities of Florida, Inc. (“Abilities”) is a non-profit corporation that obtains financing through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to purchase condominium units that it then leases to handicapped persons. HUD refused to finance Abilities’ purchase of units at Woodside Village because of the nine-month lease restriction. As a result, Abilities filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Woodside Village had violated fair housing laws by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to tenants based on their disabilities. The federal court entered a temporary injunction against the Association barring the enforcement of the lease restriction against Abilities. Subsequently, the parties settled the lawsuit. One condition of the settlement was that the Association adopt the so-called “Abilities Amendment,” which would permit Abilities to purchase six units at the condominium that would be exempt from the nine-month lease restriction. The amendment was properly adopted by the Association’s members in November of 1997.

On appeal, the district court agreed with the trial court that the Abilities Amendment impermissibly created two classes of condominium ownership, although the court cited no authority to support its conclusion. See Woodside Village Condomin *463 ium Ass’n, 754 So.2d at 836. In so doing, the court rejected petitioner’s claims that the issue was not properly before the trial court and that the amendment should not be considered in an equal protection argument regarding an arbitrary creation and treatment of two classes of unit owners since the “class” created by the amendment resulted from the settlement of a contested claim involving alleged civil rights violations. See id.

As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that some courts and commentators have expressed considerable doubt as to whether the actions of a community association, such as a condominium association, constitute state action necessary for constitutional claims. See, e.g., Laguna Royale Owners Ass’n v. Darger, 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 174 Cal.Rptr. 136, 144 (1981) (“[T]here is considerable doubt of whether the actions of Association constitute state action so as to bring into play the constitutional guarantees.”); Lewis A. Schiller, Limitations on the Enforceability of Condominium Rules, 22 Stetson L.Rev. 1133, 1167 (1993) (noting that state action appears to be lacking in condominium rules, although author expressed view that constitutional standards should apply to condominium rules). On the other hand, some courts have either assumed state action exists or have chosen not to address the issue. For example, in White Egret, this Court analyzed a due process and equal protection challenge to an age restriction contained in a declaration without specifically discussing the issue of state action. See White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979); see also Franklin v. Spadafora, 388 Mass. 764, 447 N.E.2d 1244, 1249-51 (1983) (assuming state action for purposes of analyzing claim that an amendment limiting to two the number of units which could be owned by any individual or entity deprived plaintiffs of their due process and equal protection rights). We resolve the issue here by concluding that no colorable claim of discrimination has been demonstrated.

We recognize that amendments which grant different benefits or impose different restrictions on truly similarly situated unit owners may be subject to challenge. For instance, in Pearlman v. Lake Dora Villas Management, Inc., 479 So.2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), the court invalidated a declaration provision prohibiting all children under sixteen from permanent residence, except children of transferees from an institutional first mortgage. In so doing, the court agreed with the appellants’ argument that the provision violated equal protection by its arbitrary creation and treatment of two classes of grantees. See id. at 780. The court reasoned as follows:

The Association does not argue that children under the age of sixteen whose parents own a unit as transferees from an institutional first mortgage are less intrusive that those children whose parents obtained title from another source. It speculates such a group may be smaller and the exception is required for financing purposes. However true that may be as a practical matter, the distinction between the two classes of children still remains arbitrary and discriminatory.

Id. at 781. However, unlike the situation in Pearlman, the distinction between Abilities and other unit owners, such as the respondents, is not arbitrary and discriminatory. Rather, it is directly related to providing reasonable accommodations to enable handicapped persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a unit in the complex through the assistance of Abilities.

As noted by petitioner, both federal law and section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2000), generally prohibit discrimination in the *464sale or rental of a dwelling based on, among other things, a person’s handicap. For purposes of section 760.23(7) and (8),8 pertaining to discrimination because of a handicap, discrimination includes “[a] refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” § 760.23(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). Thus, contrary to the holdings below, we conclude the Abilities Amendment does not constitute an arbitrary and discriminatory creation of two classes of unit owners in its attempt to accommodate the disabled. Cf. Lakeside Manor Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Forehand, 513 So.2d 1104, 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (rejecting argument that right of first refusal in condominium declaration pertaining to sales and leases was invalid merely because the developer and first mortgage holders were exempt from its operation).

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT

We recognize the concerns that owners, such as respondents, who purchased their individual condominium units for investments have regarding the imposition of lease restrictions through subsequent declaration amendments without the consent of all unit owners. The question is, of course, how far can two-thirds of the condominium owners go in restricting leasing rights in the condominium units. The answer will usually be found in the legislative scheme creating and governing condominiums. Although we believe such concerns are not without merit, we are constrained to the view that they are better addressed by the Legislature. If condominium owners are to be restrained in their enactment of such lease restrictions, it is appropriate that such restraint be set out in the legislative scheme that created and regulates condominiums and condominium living. As noted above, the Legislature has demonstrated its awareness of the need for limitations on the authority of unit owners to amend a declaration by its enactment of section 718.110(l)(a), (4), and (8). However, as noted, in this instance no provision in the Condominium Act prohibits the adoption of an amendment imposing a lease restriction, nor does any provision require the consent of all unit owners to adopt such an amendment. To the contrary, the Condominium Act provides broad authority for amending a declaration of condominium. See § 718.110(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000).

For the reasons stated above, we quash the decision below and approve the decisions reached in Seagate and Flagler Federal to the extent consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

*465WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, PARIENTE, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

QUINCE, J., concurs specially with an opinion.

QUINCE, J.,

specially concurring.

I concur in the majority’s decision which quashes the decision by the Second District Court of Appeal. I write simply to urge the Legislature to seriously consider placing some restrictions on present and/or future condominium owners’ ability to alter the rights of existing condominium owners. At the time the units in question here were purchased, the owners had the right to lease their property with relatively few restrictions. One of the owners purchased his units in 1979 and had enjoyed this leasing right for eighteen years before the Declaration of Condominium was amended. The twelve-month lease which was permitted at the time these unit owners purchased their units is no longer valid. These owners can now only lease their property for nine months in any twelve month period. As the district court pointed out the amendment has deprived these owners of a valuable right that existed at the time of purchase. See Woodside Village Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Jahren, 754 So.2d 831, 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). This valuable right may well have been the determinative factor for their decisions to buy these properties. As the district court suggested, there should at least be some type of “escape” provision for those “unit owners whose substantial property rights are altered by amendments to declarations adopted after they acquire their property.” 754 So.2d at 835.

HUDSON, Judge.

This case concerns a dispute between a coastal homeowner's association and one of its members about the association's authority to levy a special assessment for dredging and maintenance of a waterway. On 21 February 2002, plaintiff Raymond Clifton Parker sued for judgment declaring that a vote on the assessment, the assessment itself, and a contract between defendant New Hanover County ("the county") and defendant Figure "8" Beach Homeowners' Association, Inc. ("HOA") were ultra vires, inappropriately obtained, and null and void. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, and by consent of all parties, plaintiff was deemed to have moved for summary judgment. The court denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendants' motions by order entered 16 May 2003. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Plaintiff owns property on Figure 8 Island ("Figure 8"), a privately owned island of 563 lots in New Hanover County. Mason Inlet runs along the south end of the island, separating it from the Town of Wrightsville Beach. Figure 8 is governed pursuant to the HOA bylaws and applicable restrictive covenants. Figure 8 property owners, including plaintiff, are members of the HOA. On 29 January 1993, the covenants were amended to add "channel dredging; beach renourishment" as purposes for which annual assessments could be used. Until 12 April 1993, there were three versions of restrictive covenants on Figure 8 lots, based on their date of *875sale. On 12 April 1993, the HOA made the 1978 version of the restrictive covenant applicable to all lots. This covenant obligates property owners to pay an annual assessment in an amount fixed by the HOA board, which can also levy additional assessments as it deems necessary. Any assessment for new capital improvements costing more than $60,000 requires approval by a majority of HOA members eligible to vote.

In 1999, the county, the HOA, and several other homeowner associations in the Wrightsville Beach area had been considering measures to deal with erosion, channel dredging and other beach-related maintenance matters. The homeowner associations formed a coalition called the Mason Inlet Preservation Group ("MIPG"), which undertook a project to relocate Mason Inlet. The sand dredged from the project would be used to renourish Figure 8's beaches. The county commissioners voted to sponsor the project and pay for it through a special assessment on the property owners of Wrightsville Beach and Figure 8. Over the next two years, the project moved through the permitting and planning process, and in November 2001, the county obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers a permit to relocate Mason Inlet. The permit required that the county maintain the relocated inlet for thirty years through regular dredging. On 5 November 2001, the county commission voted 3-2 against the project based on concerns about the cost of maintaining the relocated inlet.

The Figure 8 HOA board quickly developed a plan to seek reversal of the commissioners' vote. Having determined that the costly maintenance was a capital improvement, the board approved immediate solicitation of a vote by HOA members to approve a special assessment covering the maintenance costs of the relocated inlet. On 14 November 2001, the board mailed letters and ballots to all eligible HOA voters. A majority of the ballots returned voted in favor of the special assessment associated with the project.

Plaintiff first argues that the court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in allowing defendants' motion for summary judgment. We disagree.

"The test to be applied by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment [is] whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions of file or affidavits established a genuine issue as to any material fact." McGinnis Point Owners Ass'n v. Joyner, 135 N.C.App. 752, 754, 522 S.E.2d 317, 319 (1999) (citing N.C.R. Civ. P. 56(c)). "If no such issue exists, the trial court must then determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. This Court has set forth the following standard for interpreting covenants imposing affirmative obligations:

Covenants that impose affirmative obligations on property owners are strictly construed and unenforceable unless the obligations are imposed in clear and unambiguous language that is sufficiently definite to assist courts in its application. To be enforceable, such covenants must contain some ascertainable standard by which a court can objectively determine both that the amount of the assessment and the purpose for which it is levied fall within the contemplation of the covenant. Assessment provisions in restrictive covenants (1) must contain a sufficient standard by which to measure ... liability for assessments,... (2) must identify with particularity the property to be maintained, and (3) must provide guidance to a reviewing court as to which facilities and properties the ... association ... chooses to maintain.

Allen v. Sea Gate Assn., 119 N.C.App. 761, 764, 460 S.E.2d 197, 199 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Figure Eight Beach Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Parker and Laing, 62 N.C.App. 367, 376, 303 S.E.2d 336, 341 (1983) and Beech Mountain Property Owners' Assoc. v. Seifart, 48 N.C.App. 286, 295-96, 269 S.E.2d 178, 183-84 (1980), disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 320, 307 S.E.2d 170 (1983)).

We first consider whether the covenants "contain a sufficient standard by which to *876measure" the HOA's liability for assessments, and whether the covenants "identify with particularity the property to be maintained," and provide us guidance as to which facilities and properties are to be maintained. Regarding annual assessments, the covenant provides:

8(c) The funds arising from such assessment or charges or additional assessment may be used for any or all of the following purposes: Maintaining, operating, improving or replacing the bridges; protection of the property from erosion; collecting and disposing of garbage, ashes, rubbish and the like; maintenance, improvement and lighting of the streets, roads, drives, rights of way, community land and facilities, tennis courts, marsh and waterways; employing watchmen; enforcing these restrictions; paying taxes, indebtedness to the Association, insurance premiums, governmental charges of all kinds and descriptions and, in addition, doing any other things necessary or desirable in the opinion of the Association to keep the property in neat and good order and to provide for the health, welfare and safety of owners and residents of Figure Eight Island.

(Emphasis supplied). The 29 January 1993 amendment added the language "channel dredging; beach renourishment" to paragraph 8(c). Taken together, the language of this paragraph provides for assessments to be used for channel dredging and maintenance of marshes and waterways and for payment of governmental charges of all kinds and descriptions. Maps included in the covenants depict and refer to several of the areas which the assessment would be used to dredge and maintain.

One area covered by the assessment which is not immediately adjacent to Figure 8, and thus not depicted in the maps, is that where the to-be-opened Mason Creek would flow into the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway ("AIW"). This area was of concern to the Army Corp of Engineers and the HOA because the planned relocation of Mason Inlet and the reopening of Mason Creek could create problems with sand build up at this juncture with the AIW. Plaintiff contends that because this area is neither named nor depicted in the covenants, it is not specifically identified and could not have been intended for inclusion in the covenants' maintenance provisions. Our courts have stated that "[r]estrictive covenants are strictly construed, but they should not be construed `in an unreasonable manner or a manner that defeats the plain and obvious purpose of the covenant.'" Hultquist v. Morrow, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 610 S.E.2d 288, 291 (2005) (quoting Cumberland Homes, Inc. v. Carolina Lakes Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 158 N.C.App. 518, 521, 581 S.E.2d 94, 97 (2003)).

Concerning this location the trial court noted in finding 14:

14. Figure Eight Island has a boating community, with a marina near its main clubhouse and with several private docks on the back, or "sound side," of the island. Boating access to the AIW has been enhanced for residents on the southern back side of the island with the dredging and reopening of Mason's Creek, and the entire island's boating community is benefitted by once again having a navigable inlet on the southern end to the Atlantic Ocean. Periodic dredging of shoaling sands within the intersection of Mason's Creek and the AIW, occurring at a location some 4,500 feet from the southern end of the island proper, nevertheless directly benefits the navigability of channels for the Figure Eight Island boating community and the boaters' access to Mason Inlet, Wrightsville Beach and points both south and north on the AIW.

This finding is supported by the exhibits before the trial court, such as the aerial photo of the island and the environmental assessment report created by the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers. As several aspects of the overall Mason Inlet relocation plan would have an impact on the confluence of AIW and Mason Creek, we believe that the court's construction of the covenants was reasonable and that the evidence adequately supports this finding, which in turn supports the legal conclusion that the "authority of the Figure 8 *877HOA to assess its property owners/members upon a vote of the membership is lawfully authorized."

In addition, the HOA ballot clearly specified the possible cost involved and the period of time dredging maintenance could be required. The ballot states, in pertinent part:

The Board of Directors of the Figure "8" Beach Homeowners' Association, Inc. proposes a Special Assessment to be submitted to a vote of the members. The Assessment is for the purpose of funding the costs of maintenance dredging of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIW) in the vicinity of the confluence of the AIW and Mason Creek, but only at times when maintenance of this area is required to be done by New Hanover County as a condition of federal or state permits authorizing the relocation of Mason Inlet. The assessment is not to be used when dredging of this area is being done in connection with the Mason Inlet Relocation Project by New Hanover County. The assessment will not be levied if the Mason Inlet Relocation Project is not constructed by July 1, 2003. The Board is authorized to assess up to $350,000 in any year. The assessment may be levied at such times and in such amounts as the Board deems appropriate for up to thirty years from the date of approval.

HOA members who voted were informed of the location of the area to be maintained as well as the cost involved and the duration of the commitment upon which they were voting.

Plaintiff also argues that rulings at the hearing and in settling the record prejudiced plaintiff in his appeal. We disagree.

Plaintiff contends that he was prejudiced by his inability to review the actual ballots submitted by HOA members during the vote on the special assessment. Plaintiff alleged that some of the signatures on ballots might be fraudulent. However, the transcript of the hearing on the parties' summary judgment motions reveals that plaintiff was not denied such access. Defendants' counsel stated:

We are not wanting to deny access to the entire ballots to Mr. Parker and his attorney. We simply want to maintain the secrecy of how the members voted and we've offered some means by which - I've already folded 55 no votes where we could first let them count the no votes without seeing the names, the names are folded under. Mr. Parker's name is among these. We could also allow them to inspect the ballots which were determined to be invalid. Most of them simply weren't marked. People signed their names and then forgot to vote on the top half of the page.

The trial court then undertook an in camera inspection of the ballots to look for signs of tampering. After this inspection, the court told plaintiff he could examine the ballots in a bifurcated process in order to preserve the secrecy of HOA members' votes. Plaintiff could see all of the signatures first, then could see the portion of the ballots indicating the vote cast. Plaintiff's counsel objected to this process, stating that he believed there was no expectation of privacy regarding the ballots, but then stated:

I will review the ballots at a break and. . . . And then we'll move forward. And I assume that at some point in time, if I feel like we need to open this issue up, we can do it

Plaintiff's counsel never raised the issue again. Having failed even to avail himself of the opportunity to review the ballots as described at the hearing and to raise this issue further with the trial court, plaintiff may not now complain that the access he was granted was insufficient and unduly prejudicial to him.

Affirmed.

Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and STEELMAN concur.

Justice WALLACE, JR.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, we determine whether the rules and regulations enacted by a homeowners’ association governing the posting of signs, the use of the community room, and access to its newsletter violated our state constitutional guarantees of free expression. The trial court held that the association’s rules and regulations were not subject to the right of free speech embodied in our State Constitution. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed. We granted certification and now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division.

We start from the proposition that all citizens of this State, including the residents of Twin Rivers, possess the constitutional right to free speech and assembly. We acknowledge, however, that those rights are not absolute, as citizens may waive or otherwise curtail their rights. This case presents us with a hybrid setting to apply the standards set forth in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 423 A.2d 615 (1980), appeal dismissed sub nom. Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 867, 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982) and New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326, 650 A.2d 757 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 812, 116 S.Ct. 62, 133 L.Ed.2d 25 (1995). In applying the Schmid/Coalition multi-faceted standard, we conclude that the Association’s policies, as set forth in its rules and regulations, do not violate our constitution.

*350I.

The facts are from the record created in the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Twin Rivers is a planned unit development consisting of privately owned condominium duplexes, townhouses, single-family homes, apartments, and commercial buildings located in East Windsor, New Jersey. The community covers approximately one square mile and has a population of approximately 10,000 residents. The Twin Rivers Community Trust (Trust) is a private corporation that owns Twin Rivers’s common property and facilities. The Trust was created by indenture on November 13, 1969, for the stated purpose of owning, managing, operating, and maintaining the residential common property of Twin Rivers. The administrator of the Trust certified that “Trust-owned property and facilities are for the exclusive use of Twin Rivers residents and their invited guests,” and that the “general public is not invited” to use them.

The Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association (Association) is a private corporation that serves as trustee of the Trust. The Trust authorizes the Association to make rules and regulations for the conduct of its members while occupying the land owned or controlled by the Trust, to provide services to its members, and to maintain the common lands and facilities in Twin Rivers. The Association maintains the Trust’s private residential roads, provides street lighting and snow removal, assigns parking spaces in its parking lots, and collects rubbish in portions of Twin Rivers. By acquiring property in Twin Rivers, the owner automatically becomes a member of the Association and subject to its Articles of Incorporation (Articles) and Bylaws.

The Articles authorize the Association to exercise all of the powers, rights, and privileges provided to corporations organized under the New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation Act, N.J.S.A 15A:1-1 to -10. The Bylaws additionally authorize the Association to adopt, publish, and enforce rules governing the use of common areas and facilities. The Bylaws may be amended by a majority *351of a quorum of members present in person or by proxy at a regular or special meeting of the members.

The Association is governed by a Board of Directors (Board), whose members are elected by all eligible voting members of the Association. The Board is responsible for making and enforcing the rules, and for providing services to its members that are financed through mandatory assessments levied against residents pursuant to an annual budget adopted by the Board.

Prior to the commencement of this litigation, various residents of Twin Rivers formed a committee, known as the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers (Committee), for the purpose of affecting the manner in which Twin Rivers was governed. Eventually, the Committee and three individual residents of Twin Rivers (collectively, plaintiffs) filed a nine-count complaint against the Association and Scott Pohl, the president of the Association, seeking to invalidate various rules and regulations. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include the Trust as a defendant. The thrust of the complaint was that the Association had effectively replaced the role of the municipality in the lives of its residents, and therefore, the Association’s internal rules and regulations should be subject to the free speech and free association clauses of the New Jersey Constitution. Although plaintiffs’ complaint consisted of nine counts, only the first three counts are relevant to this appeal.

In count one of the complaint, plaintiffs sought to invalidate the Association’s policy relating to the posting of signs. The Association’s sign policy provided that residents may post a sign in any window of their residence and outside in the flower beds so long as the sign was no more than three feet from the residence. In essence, the policy limits signs to one per lawn and one per window. The policy also forbids the posting of signs on utility poles and natural features within the community. The stated purpose for the sign policy is to avoid the clutter of signs and to preserve the aesthetic value of the common areas, as well as to allow for lawn maintenance and leaf collection. Plaintiffs sought *352injunctive relief to permit the posting of political signs on the property of community residents “and on common elements under reasonable regulation,” on the basis that the current policy was unconstitutional.

In count two, plaintiffs complained of the Association’s policy in respect of the use of its community room. In general, the community room is available to residents of Twin Rivers, as well as clubs, organizations, and committees approved by the Trust who want to rent the room for parties or other events. When the complaint was filed, the community room policy involved a two-tiered rental charge system that differentiated between the uses of the room. However, during the pendency of this action, the Association amended the community room policy to eliminate the tier system in favor of a uniform rental fee of $165 and a refundable security deposit of $250. Additionally, a certificate of insurance naming the Association as an insured was required. The rental fees were intended to cover the costs associated with the maintenance of the room.

Plaintiffs asserted that the community room policy denied them equal protection of the laws and unreasonably and unconstitutionally violated their right to access the community room on a fair and equitable basis. They sought temporary and permanent injunctions “to allow [pjlaintiffs to utilize the community room in the same manner as other similarly situated entities.” Plaintiffs also urged that the rental fees were excessive because they were not related to the actual rental costs incurred by the Association.

In count three, plaintiffs alleged they were denied equal access to the Association’s monthly newspaper, Twin Rivers Today (Today). The purpose of the newspaper is to provide residents with news and information that concerns the community. The editorial committee of Today selects the content of the newspaper. The paper is delivered to all Twin Rivers residents, but not to the general public. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that all Twin Rivers residents should have “equal access” to the pages of Today. Also, plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction enjoining the presi*353dent of the Board from using Today “as his own personal political trumpet.”

The Association filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The material facts were not disputed. The trial court issued a comprehensive opinion, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the sign claims in count one and on the newspaper claims in count three. The court, however, granted plaintiffs partial relief in respect of the community room claims in count two.

Central to the trial court’s decision was the determination that Twin Rivers was not a “quasi-municipality,” and thus was not subject to the New Jersey Constitution’s free speech and association clauses. The court noted that while the Association asserted considerable influence on the lives of Twin Rivers residents, that impact was a function of the contractual relationship that residents entered into when they elected to purchase property in Twin Rivers. The court applied the traditional test for evaluating the reasonableness of restrictive covenants and found that the covenant relating to the posting of signs was reasonable and enforceable. Although the trial court upheld the amended policy of a unified rate for the community room, it found that the regulations for use of the community room were impermissibly vague. The court directed the Association to modify the regulations to provide clear standards for the granting or withholding of permission for the room’s use. Further, the court concluded that plaintiffs were not denied access to the Association’s newspaper and that it would be improper under constitutional principles of free press for the court to exert control over its contents.

Plaintiffs appealed. In a published opinion, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court, holding that the Association was subject to state constitutional standards with respect to its internal rules and regulations. Comm, for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Ass’n, 383 N.J.Super. 22, 35, 890 A.2d 947 (App.Div.2006). “[I]n balancing the interests of the parties,” the panel found that “plaintiffs’ rights to engage in expressive *354exercises ... must take precedence over the [Association’s] private property interests.” Id. at 42-43, 890 A.2d 947. The panel thus remanded counts one, two, and three for reconsideration in light of that determination. Id. at 68, 890 A.2d 947.

The Association petitioned this Court for certification on whether the New Jersey Constitution applies to its internal rules and regulations. Plaintiffs cross-petitioned for certification on an issue unrelated to this appeal. We granted the Association’s petition and denied plaintiffs’ cross-petition. 186 N.J. 608, 897 A.2d 1061 (2006).

II.

The Association argues that the test in State v. Schmid, supra, controls the disposition of this appeal, and contends that under that test, it was error to impose constitutional obligations on its private property. The Association urges this Court to follow the vast majority of other jurisdictions that have refused to impose constitutional obligations on the internal membership rules of private homeowners’ associations. In support of that view, the Association emphasizes that it does not invite public use of its property, and its members participate in the decision-making process of the Association. Additionally, its members are afforded extensive statutory protections, and the business judgment rule protects members from arbitrary decision-making. Further, the Association contends that the relationship with its members is a contractual one, set forth in reasonable and lawful restrictive covenants that appear in all property deeds.

Defendant Pohl argues that the First Amendment bars a court from asserting control over the content and editorial policies of the Association’s newspaper, maintaining that the First Amendment gives the Association discretion to determine the content of its newspaper. He urges this Court to reinstate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Association dismissing count three.

*355In contrast, plaintiffs ask this Court to affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division to find that the New Jersey Constitution limits the manner in which the Association interacts with its members. They urge that political speech is entitled to heightened protection and that they should have the right to post political signs beyond the Association’s restricted sign policy. Plaintiffs further contend that the excessive fees charged for the use of the community room are not reasonably related to the actual costs incurred by the Association. Finally, plaintiffs claim that the State Constitution requires that the Association publish plaintiffs’ views on an equal basis with which the Association’s views are published in its newspaper.

We granted amicus curiae status to the Community Association Institute, the Public Advocate of New Jersey, and the AARP Foundation. The latter two entities favor plaintiffs’ position, while the Community Association Institute supports the Association’s position.

III.

Our constitution affirmatively grants to individuals the rights of speech and assembly.

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

[N.J. Const, art. I, ¶ 6.]

The people have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.

[N.J. Const, art. I, V18].

This Court has long held that the rights of speech and assembly cannot be curtailed by the government. King v. S. Jersey Nat’l Bank, 66 N.J. 161, 177, 330 A.2d 1 (1974). Moreover, under limited circumstances, we have determined that those constitutional rights may be enforced against private entities. Schmid, supra, 84 N.J. at 559, 423 A.2d 615. In fact, our *356constitutional guarantee of free expression “is an affirmative right, broader than practically all others in the nation.” Green Party v. Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc., 164 N.J. 127, 145, 752 A.2d 315 (2000). Here, we must determine whether this case presents one of those limited circumstances where, in the setting of a private community, the Association’s rules and regulations are limited by the constitutional rights of plaintiffs.

A.

Federal case law has evolved to require that there must be “state action” to enforce constitutional rights against private entities. Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946), is recognized as the leading case in this area of law. In Marsh, a private company owned and controlled all aspects of the town. Id. at 502, 66 S.Ct. at 277, 90 L.Ed. at 266. The company refused to allow solicitation and the distribution of religious literature. Id. at 503, 66 S.Ct. at 277, 90 L.Ed. at 267. Marsh was arrested for trespassing while distributing religious literature on company-owned land that was otherwise open to the public. Ibid. The Court explained that “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” Id. at 506, 66 S.Ct. at 278, 90 L.Ed. at 268 (citation omitted). The Court then balanced the constitutional rights of the property owners against the First Amendment rights of Marsh to find that “the latter occupy a preferred position.” Id. at 509, 66 S.Ct. at 280, 90 L.Ed. at 270 (footnote omitted). The Court concluded that, in those limited circumstances, the property owner’s action constituted “state action” and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 508-09, 66 S.Ct. at 279-80, 90 L.Ed. at 269-70.

The United States Supreme Court later considered the application of Marsh to shopping centers. In the first case to address the issue, the Court held that the reasoning of Marsh applied to a shopping mall. See Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local *357 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308, 325, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 1612, 20 L.Ed.2d 603, 616 (1968). However, the Court subsequently retreated from that position and, in a later case, concluded that the First Amendment affords no general right of free speech in privately owned shopping centers. See PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 80-81, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2040, 64 L.Ed.2d 741, 751-52 (1980) (noting that although First Amendment did not grant right of free expression in shopping centers, states may adopt greater free speech rights); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 520-21, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 1036-37, 47 L.Ed.2d 196, 207 (1976).

B.

Our jurisprudence has not been as confining. We briefly outline the development of our law expanding the application of free speech or similar constitutional rights against non-governmental entities.

In State v. Shack, 58 N.J. 297, 300-01, 277 A.2d 369 (1971), this Court was asked to apply the principles of Marsh to a private farm operation. In Shack, two employees of federally funded organizations were arrested for trespassing when they entered private property to provide legal and medical assistance to migrant workers. Id. at 299-300, 277 A.2d 369. The defendants challenged the constitutionality of the trespassing statute on several grounds. Id. at 301, 277 A.2d 369. However, the Court declined to rule on the constitutional challenge, noting only that Marsh was inapplicable because the land in question was not open to the public. Id. at 301-02, 277 A.2d 369. Applying our common law, this Court held that the defendants’ conduct did not constitute trespass within the meaning of the statute under which they were prosecuted. Id. at 308, 277 A.2d 369. Thus, the broader issue of whether the federal or State Constitution required access to the land remained unresolved. Id. at 302, 277 A.2d 369.

Almost ten years passed before this Court decided the landmark Schmid case. In Schmid, supra, Princeton University, a private, non-profit institution, prohibited persons not affiliated with the *358university from soliciting and distributing political literature on campus. 84 N.J. at 538-39, 423 A.2d 615. The defendant, a non-student, was arrested and convicted for trespassing while distributing Labor Party materials on the Princeton campus. Id. at 538, 541, 423 A.2d 615. Princeton’s regulations required off-campus organizations to obtain permission before distributing materials. Id. at 539, 423 A.2d 615. The defendant claimed that his arrest was unconstitutional because distribution of political material was protected by both the First Amendment and Article I of the New Jersey Constitution. Id. at 542, 423 A.2d 615. Princeton argued that as a private institution, it was not subject to the strictures of the federal or State Constitutions. Ibid.

Analyzing Princeton’s claim, the Court recognized that the

constitutional equipoise between expressional rights and property rights must be similarly gauged on a scale measuring the nature and extent of the public’s use of such property. Thus, even as against the exercise of important rights of speech, assembly, petition and the like, private property itself remains protected under due process standards from untoward interference with or confiscatory restrictions upon its reasonable use.

[Id. at 561, 423 A.2d 615 (citations omitted).]

The Court crafted “the test to be applied to ascertain the parameters of the rights of speech and assembly upon privately owned property and the extent to which such property reasonably can be restricted to accommodate these rights.” Id. at 563, 423 A.2d 615. That test requires courts to consider

(1) the nature, purposes, and primary use of such private property, generally, its “normal” use, (2) the extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use that property, and (3) the purpose of the expressional activity undertaken upon such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property.

[Ibid.]

The Court explained that such a test would allow the court “to ascertain whether in a given ease owners of private property may be required to permit, subject to suitable restrictions, the reasonable exercise by individuals of the constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly.” Ibid. In assessing the reasonableness of any restrictions, the court shall consider “whether there exist convenient and feasible alternative means to individuals to engage *359in substantially the same expressional activity.” Ibid. The Court applied the test to Princeton and found that the university had invited the public to use its facilities, the defendant’s expressional activities were consonant with both the private and public uses of Princeton’s campus, and Princeton’s regulations contained no standards for governing the exercise of free speech. Id. at 564-69, 423 A.2d 615. Therefore, the Court concluded that Princeton violated the defendant’s constitutional rights of speech and assembly. Id. at 569, 423 A.2d 615.

In Bluvias v. Winfield Mutual Housing Corp., 224 N.J.Super. 515, 520-21, 540 A.2d 1324 (App.Div.), certif. granted, 111 N.J. 621, 546 A.2d 538 (1988), the Appellate Division considered a constitutional challenge brought against a mutual housing corporation under circumstances similar to the present case. In Bluvias, with the exception of the streets, the Winfield Mutual Housing Corporation (Corporation) owned the entire Township of Winfield (Township), including the municipal building, school, shopping area, and the dwelling units. Id. at 518, 540 A.2d 1324. The Corporation had acquired the property in late 1950 from the federal government. Ibid. Pursuant to the terms of its mortgage, each member of the Corporation was required to execute a mutual ownership contract to establish the right to “ ‘perpetual use in a dwelling unit’ in the project and imposed restrictions on becoming a ‘member’ of the Corporation.” Ibid. If a member ceased to occupy the dwelling unit, the Corporation had the right to acquire the unit for a set price. Id. at 519, 540 A.2d 1324. Even after the Corporation paid off the mortgage and the restriction on transfer lapsed, a majority of the members voted to continue the restrictions. Ibid.

The plaintiffs were members of the Corporation who wanted the right to transfer their units without first offering the unit to the Corporation. Id. at 520, 540 A.2d 1324. The plaintiffs brought suit against the Corporation, asserting that the bylaws and rules of the Corporation violated their constitutional right to sell their property. Ibid. The Appellate Division found that the nature of *360the Corporation, although it owned all the land, was not a company town under the definitions of Marsh and Schmid. Id. at 520-21, 540 A.2d 1324. Because the Township had its own government and included citizens who were not members of the Corporation, and because all powers usually held by a municipality were exercised by the Township, the panel concluded that the actions of the Corporation were private, not public. Id. at 520-21, 540 A.2d 1324.

We granted certification to consider “whether the membership by-laws promulgated by [the Corporation] constituted] governmental action and a denial of equal protection under the Federal and New Jersey Constitutions.” Bluvias v. Winfield Mut. Hous. Corp., 114 N.J. 589, 590, 556 A.2d 321 (1989) (internal quotations omitted). Later, however, we dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted because we found “no issue of constitutional dimension.” Ibid. We noted that the Corporation, although it owned all of the property and dwelling units within the Township, was not a state actor under Marsh, and thus, it was not subject to constitutional standards. Ibid. Further, we noted that “[a] duly-elected governing body and a board of education established under law administer^] any necessary governmental services” within the Township. Ibid.

The Court expanded the Schmid test in New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326, 650 A.2d 757 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 812, 116 S.Ct. 62, 133 L.Ed.2d 25 (1995). In Coalition, the plaintiffs sought judicial approval to permit their members to distribute leaflets in shopping centers to support opposition to any military action in the Middle East. Id. at 336-37, 650 A.2d 757. The Court concluded that “each of the elements of the [Schmid] standard and their ultimate balance support the conclusion that leafleting is constitutionally required to be permitted.” Id. at 356-57, 650 A.2d 757. Thus, the Court not only relied on the three-pronged test in Schmid, but also on the general balancing of expressional rights and private interests. Id. at 362, 650 A.2d 757. Nevertheless, the *361Court recognized that regional shopping centers have broad powers to adopt reasonable conditions “concerning the time, place, and manner of such leafleting.” Ibid. The Court limited its holding to “leafleting and associated speech in support of, or in opposition to, causes, candidates, and parties — political and societal free speech.” Id. at 874, 650 A.2d 757. To avoid future questions, the Court addressed the “horribles” the defendants asserted would be the inevitable consequence of its decision. Id. at 373, 650 A.2d 757. The Court emphasized that “[n]o highway strip mall, no football stadium, no theatre, no single high suburban store, no stand-alone use, and no small to medium shopping center sufficiently satisfies the standard of Schmid to warrant the constitutional extension of free speech to those premises, and we so hold.” Ibid.

This Court has also addressed the proper standard for determining the reasonableness of restrictions that shopping mall owners may impose on leafleting and other political and societal speech. Green Party, supra, 164 N.J. at 131, 752 A.2d 315. In Green Party, the plaintiffs sought to invalidate three regulations the shopping mall adopted to limit leafleting and other similar activities. Ibid. The mall required the plaintiffs to obtain a $1,000,000 insurance policy, “to limit their access to the mall to one day, or a few days a year,” and to execute a “hold harmless” agreement in favor of the mall. Ibid, (internal quotations omitted).

The Court applied the principles of Schmid and Coalition, explaining that in balancing the rights of citizens to speak and assemble against the private property rights of mall owners, the court must consider the nature and importance of the affected right, the extent to which the restriction impedes that right, and the mall’s need for retaining the restriction. Id. at 148-49, 752 A.2d 315. The Court emphasized that “[t]he more important the constitutional right sought to be exercised, the greater the mall’s need must be to justify interference with the exercise of that right.” Id. at 149, 752 A.2d 315 (citation omitted). The Court concluded that the proofs in favor of the mail’s restrictions did not *362establish that they were intended “to achieve legitimate business objectives while preserving the leafleteers[’j expressive rights.” Id. at 157-58, 752 A.2d 315. Consequently, the Court invalidated the conditions imposed for insurance and the hold harmless agreement, noting that a “hold harmless agreement related to the actual activities of the leafleteers that cause liability to be created would not be objectionable.” Id. at 158, 752 A.2d 315. Although the Court recognized that the parties may have reached an agreement concerning the number of days when leafleting may be sought, the Court found that “more than one day per year is reasonably required to exercise the expressive rights requested.” Ibid.

C.

Our review of the case law in other jurisdictions reveals that only a handful of states recognize a constitutional right to engage in free speech, assembly, or electoral activity on privately owned property held open to the public, such as a shopping mall or a college campus. See Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr., 23 Cal.3d 899, 153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341, 347 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980); Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int'l Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 445 N.E.2d 590, 595 (1983). Those courts based their determinations, in part, on the open and public nature of the shopping mall. Further, the Supreme Court of Oregon, which originally found a constitutional right to engage in free speech and related activities, appears to have retreated from that position. Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or. 38, 11 P.3d 228, 243 (2000).

Many other states have declined to recognize a constitutional right to free speech in privately owned malls, largely on the ground that malls are not “state actors.” See Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Comm., 159 Ariz. 371, 767 P.2d 719, 723-24 (Ct.App.1988); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48, 469 A.2d 1201, 1209-10 (1984); Citizens for Ethical Gov’t, Inc. v. Gwinnett Place Assocs., 260 Ga. 245, 392 S.E.2d 8, 10 (1990); Woodland v. Mich. Citizens Lobby, 423 Mich. 188, 378 N.W.2d *363337, 348 (1985); SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 W.Y.2d 496, 498 N.Y.S.2d 99, 488 N.E.2d 1211, 1217-18 (1985); State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 273 S.E.2d 708, 712 (1981); Stranahan, supra, 11 P.3d at 243; W. Pa. Socialist Workers 1982 Campaign v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 512 Pa. 23, 515 A.2d 1331, 1333 (1986); Charleston Joint Venture v. McPherson, 308 S.C. 145, 417 S.E.2d 544, 548 (1992); Southcenter Joint Venture v. Nat'l Democratic Policy Comm., 113 Wash.2d 413, 780 P.2d 1282, 1291 (1989); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis.2d 492, 407 N.W.2d 832, 845-46 (1987).

We note also that, in the context of an apartment complex, the California Supreme Court modified its position in Robins, supra, and now requires state action before free speech rights will be recognized. Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass’n, 26 Cal.4th 1013, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 336, 29 P.3d 797, 803 (2001). In Golden Gateway Center, the plaintiff was the owner of a residential apartment complex. Id. 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 336, 29 P.3d at 799. The regulations for the complex banned all solicitation inside the building. Ibid. The tenants association claimed a right to distribute a newsletter and leaflets under the California Constitution’s free speech clause. Id. 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 336, 29 P.3d at 800. The California Supreme Court noted that “state action” on the part of the apartment complex was a prerequisite to the tenants’ free speech claim. Id. 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 336, 29 P.3d at 808. The court found that the apartment complex was privately owned and that access was restricted to tenants and their invitees. Id. Ill CalRptr.2d 336, 29 P.3d at 810. Thus, the court held that the apartment complex was not the “functional equivalent of a traditional public forum” and was not a state actor for purposes of the application of California’s free speech clause. Ibid.

In sum, the vast majority of other jurisdictions that have interpreted a state constitutional provision with language similar to our constitution’s free speech provision require “state action” as a precondition to imposing constitutional obligations on private property owners. See Id. 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 336, 29 P.3d at 808; see also Fiesta Mall Venture, supra, 767 P.2d at 723 (holding that *364state free speech clause did not restrain private conduct); Cologne, supra, 469 A.2d at 1209 (same); Cahill v. Cobb Place Assocs., 271 Ga. 322, 519 S.E.2d 449, 450-51 (1999) (same); People v. DiGuida, 152 Ill.2d 104, 178 Ill.Dec. 80, 604 N.E.2d 336, 345 (1992) (same); State v. Lacey, 465 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 1991) (same); Eastwood Mall, Inc. v. Slanco, 68 Ohio St. 3d 221, 626 N.E.2d 59, 61 (same), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 933, 115 S.Ct. 329, 130 L.Ed.2d 288 (1994); Woodland, supra, 378 N.W.2d at 348 (same); State v. Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Minn.1999) (same); S.O.C., Inc. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 117 Nev. 403, 23 P.3d 243, 251 (2001) (same); SHAD Alliance, supra, 498 N.Y.S.2d 99, 488 N.E.2d at 1215 (same); W. Pa. Socialist Workers, supra, 515 A.2d at 1335 (same); Southcenter Joint Venture, supra, 780 P.2d at 1291 (same); Jacobs, supra, 407 N.W.2d at 841 (same). Those courts recognize either explicitly or implicitly the principle that “the fundamental nature of a constitution is to govern the relationship between the people and their government, not to control the rights of the people vis-a-vis each other.” Southcenter Joint Venture, supra, 780 P.2d at 1286 (footnote omitted).

IV.

We concluded in Schmid, supra, that the rights of free speech and assembly under our constitution are not only secure from interference by governmental or public bodies, but under certain circumstances from the interference by the owner of private property as well. 84 N.J. at 559, 423 A.2d 615. Simply stated, we have not followed the approach of other jurisdictions to require some state action before the free speech and assembly clauses under our constitution may be invoked.

With those general principles as a backdrop, we turn now to apply the Schmid!Coalition test to the present matter. As noted, our constitution’s free speech provision is “broader than practically all others in the nation.” Green Party, supra, 164 N.J. at 145, 752 A.2d 315. Consequently, we have not followed the approach of other jurisdictions to require some state action before *365the free speech and assembly clauses under our constitution may be invoked. Even in the absence of state action, we must determine whether the acts of a homeowners’ association violated its members’ free speech and association rights in the setting of this private housing association.

This case presents an additional complication: it involves restrictions on conduct both on the private housing association’s property and on the homeowners’ properties. However, “[i]t is the extent of the restriction, and the circumstances of the restriction that are critical, not the identity of the party restricting free speech.” Coalition, supra, 138 N.J. at 369, 650 A.2d 757. We conclude that the three-pronged test in Schmid and the general balancing of expressional rights and private property interests in Coalition are the appropriate standards to decide this case.

. As noted above, the Schmid test takes into account

(1) the nature, purposes, and primary use of such private property, generally, its “normal” use, (2) the extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use that property, and (3) the purpose of the expressional activity undertaken upon such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property.

[Id. at 563, 423 A.2d 615.]

The first Schmid factor requires that we consider the nature, purposes, and primary use of the property. Twin Rivers is a common interest community “in which the property is burdened by servitudes requiring property owners to contribute to maintenance of commonly held property or to pay dues or assessments to an owners association that provides services or facilities to the community.” Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6 (2000) . We have recognized that “[a] common-interest community is distinguishable from any other form of real property ownership because ‘there is a commonality of interest, an interdependence directly tied to the use, enjoyment, and ownership of property.’ ” Fox v. Kings Grant Maint. Ass’n, 167 N.J. 208, 222, 770 A.2d 707 (2001) (quoting Wayne S. Hyatt, Condominium and Homeowner Association Practice: Community Association Law § 2.01 at 25 (2d ed.1988)).

*366The primary use of the property in Twin Rivers is residential. There are privately owned businesses within the borders of Twin Rivers, but the Association derives no revenue from them. East Windsor Township, not Twin Rivers, provides for the school system, the police and fire departments, the municipal court system, and the first aid services. Twin Rivers offers its residents services in the form of landscape maintenance, upkeep of trust-owned roads, removal of trash from certain sections of the community, and cleaning of snow. Thus, we find the nature, purposes, and primary use of Twin Rivers’s property is for private purposes and does not favor a finding that the Association’s rules and regulations violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

The second Schmid factor requires that we examine the extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use the property. A public invitation to use the premises may be express or implied. As we explained in Coalition, supra, an implied invitation can be inferred where the property owner permits and encourages public use of the property. 138 N.J. at 356, 650 A.2d 757. Here, the Association has not invited the public to use its property. Although Twin Rivers is not a gated community and its roads are accessible to public traffic, we agree with the Association’s position that “Trust-owned property and facilities are for the exclusive use of Twin Rivers residents and their invited guests.” Moreover, the mere fact that owners may sell or rent property to members of the public who are invited to come into Twin Rivers and inspect such property hardly implicates a public invitation. We conclude that the limited nature of the public’s invitation to use the property does not favor a finding that the Association’s rules and regulations violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

The third Schmid factor concerns the purpose of the expressional activity in relation to both the private and public use of the property. This part of the test requires that we examine “the compatibility of the free speech sought to be exercised with the uses of the property.” Id. at 361, 650 A.2d 757. Essentially, we must look to the fairness of the restrictions imposed by the *367Association in relation to plaintiffs’ free speech rights. In this case, plaintiffs’ expressional activities — posting political signs, free use of the community room, and access to the community newspaper — involve political-like speech aimed at affecting the manner in which Twin Rivers is managed.

We find that plaintiffs’ expressional activities are not unreasonably restricted. As the Association points out, the relationship between it and the homeowners is a contractual one, formalized in reasonable covenants that appear in all deeds. Moreover, unlike the university in Schmid, and the shopping center in Coalition, Twin Rivers is not a private forum that invites the public on its property to either facilitate academic discourse or to encourage public commerce. Rather, Twin Rivers is a private, residential community whose residents have contractually agreed to abide by the common rules and regulations of the Association. The mutual benefit and reciprocal nature of those rules and regulations, and their enforcement, is essential to the fundamental nature of the communal living arrangement that Twin Rivers residents enjoy. We further conclude that this factor does not weigh in favor of finding that the Association’s rules and regulations violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

We are mindful that at least in regard to the signs on the property of the homeowners, it is the private homeowner’s property and not that of the Association that is impacted. The private property owner not only is “protected under due process standards from untoward interference with or confiscatory restrictions upon its reasonable use,” Schmid, supra, 84 N.J. at 561, 423 A.2d 615, but also our constitution affirmatively grants the homeowner free speech and assembly rights that may be exercised on that property. Notably, the Association permits expressional activities to take place on plaintiffs’ property but with some minor restrictions. Homeowners are permitted to place a single sign in each window and signs may be placed in the flower beds adjacent to the homes. Those limitations are clearly not an “untoward interfer*368ence with” or a “confiscatory restriction” on the reasonable use by plaintiffs’ on their property to implicate due process standards.

The outcome of the balancing of the expressional rights and the privacy interests is obvious. ‘We do not interfere lightly with private property rights.” Coalition, supra, 138 N.J. at 371, 650 A.2d 757. We find that the minor restrictions on plaintiffs’ expressional activities are not unreasonable or oppressive, and the Association is not acting as a municipality. The Association’s restrictions concerning the placement of the signs, the use of the community room, and access to its newspaper are reasonable “concerning the time, place, and manner of’ such restrictions. See Id. at 362, 650 A.2d 757. Neither singularly nor in combination is the Schmid/Coalition test satisfied in favor of concluding that a constitutional right was infringed here. Consequently, we conclude that in balancing plaintiffs’ expressional rights against the Association’s private property interest, the Association’s policies do not violate the free speech and right of assembly clauses of the New Jersey Constitution.

Additionally, plaintiffs have other means of expression beyond the Association’s newspaper. Plaintiffs can walk through the neighborhood, ring the doorbells of their neighbors, and advance their views. As found by the trial court, plaintiffs can distribute their own newsletter to residents, and have done so. As members of the Association, plaintiffs can vote, run for office, and participate through the elective process in the decision-making of the Association. Thus, plaintiffs may seek to garner a majority to change the rules and regulations to reduce or eliminate the restrictions they now challenge.

V.

We recognize the concerns of plaintiffs that bear on the extent and exercise of their constitutional rights in this and other similar common interest communities. At a minimum, any restrictions on the exercise of those rights must be reasonable as to time, place, and manner. Our holding does not suggest, however, that *369residents of a homeowners’ association may never successfully seek constitutional redress against a governing association that unreasonably infringes their free speech rights.

Moreover, common interest residents have other protections. First, the business judgment rule protects common interest community residents from arbitrary decision-making. See Thanasoulis v. Winston Towers 200 Ass’n, Inc., 110 N.J. 650, 666, 542 A.2d 900 (1988) (Garibaldi, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). That is, a homeowners’ association’s governing body has “a fiduciary relationship to the unit owners, comparable to the obligation that a board of directors of a corporation owes to its stockholders.” Siller v. Hartz Mountain Assocs., 93 N.J. 370, 382, 461 A.2d 568, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 961, 104 S.Ct. 395, 78 L.Ed.2d 337 (1983). Pursuant to the business judgment rule, a homeowners’ association’s rules and regulations will be invalidated (1) if they are not authorized by statute or by the bylaws or master deed, or (2) if the association’s actions are “fraudulent, self-dealing or unconscionable.” Owners of the Man- or Homes of Whittingham v. Whittingham Homeowners Ass’n, 367 N.J.Super. 314, 322, 842 A.2d 853 (App.Div.2004) (citation omitted); see, e.g., Siller, supra, 93 N.J. at 382, 461 A.2d 568. Our Appellate Division has uniformly invoked the business judgment rule in cases involving homeowners’ associations. See, e.g., Whittingham, supra, 367 N.J.Super. at 322, 842 A.2d 853; Walker v. Briarwood Condo Ass’n, 274 N.J.Super. 422, 426, 644 A.2d 634 (App.Div.1994); see also Mulligan v. Panther Valley Prop. Owners Ass’n, 337 N.J.Super. 293, 299-300, 766 A.2d 1186 (App.Div.2001) (discussing application of the business judgment rule).

Second, residents are protected by N.J.S.A 45:22A-44 of the PREDFDA, which provides:

Powers and duties of associations

a. Subject to the master deed, declaration of covenants and restrictions or other instruments of creation, the association may do all that it is legally entitled to do under the laws applicable to its form of organization.

*370b. The association shall exercise its powers and discharge its functions in a manner that protects and furthers the health safety and general welfare of the residents of the community.

c. The association shall provide a fair and efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes between individual unit owners and the association, and between unit owners, which shall be readily available as an alternative to litigation.

[ (Emphasis added).]

Although we have not yet had the opportunity to interpret N.J.S.A. 45:22A-44, restrictive covenants established by homeowners’ associations that unreasonably limit speech and association rights could be challenged under subsection (b) of the statute.

Finally, residents are protected under traditional principles of property law — principles that specifically account for the rights afforded under our constitution’s free speech and association clauses. Our courts have recognized that restrictive covenants on real property that violate public policy are void as unenforceable. See, e.g., Clarke v. Kurtz, 123 N.J. Eq. 174, 178, 196 A. 727 (E. & A.1938) (“The equitable grounds on which restrictions of this nature may be enforced at the instance of a subsequent grantee of the common grantor are well defined. One owning a tract of land may convey a portion of it, and by appropriate covenant or agreement may lawfully restrict the use of the part conveyed for the benefit of the unsold portion, providing that the nature of the restricted use is not contrary to principles of public policy.’’) (quotations omitted) (emphasis added)); Courts at Beachgate v. Bird, 226 N.J.Super. 631, 639, 545 A.2d 243 (Ch.Div.1988) (noting that “[r]estrictions in a master deed” should be enforced “unless those provisions ‘are wholly arbitrary in their application, in violation of public policy, or that they abrogate some fundamental constitutional right’” (citation omitted)).

In Davidson Bros. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc., we enumerated the factors that courts should consider in determining whether restrictive covenants are “reasonable,” and thus enforceable:

1. The intention of the parties when the covenant was executed, and whether the parties had a viable purpose which did not at the time interfere with existing commercial laws, such as antitrust laws, or public policy.

*3712. Whether the covenant had an impact on the considerations exchanged when the covenant was originally executed____

3. Whether the covenant clearly and expressly sets forth the restrictions.

4. Whether the covenant was in writing, recorded, and if so, whether the subsequent grantee had actual notice of the covenant.

5. Whether the covenant is reasonable concerning area, time or duration----

6. Whether the covenant imposes an unreasonable restraint on trade or secures a monopoly for the covenantor____

7. Whether the covenant interferes with the public interest.

8. Whether, even if the covenant was reasonable at the time it was executed, “changed circumstances” now make the covenant unreasonable.

[ 121 N.J. 196, 211-12, 579 A.2d 288 (1990) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see Acme Markets, Inc. v. Wharton Hardware & Supply Corp., 890 F.Supp. 1230, 1242 (D.N.J.1995) (identifying Davidson Bros.’s test for determining “Validity of the Restrictive Covenant Under New Jersey Law”).]

Our constitution and the fundamental rights it protects play a pivotal role in evidencing public policy. See, e.g., Mulhearn v. Fed. Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 2 N.J. 356, 360, 66 A.2d 726 (1949) (noting that public policy is “evidenced” by the New Jersey Constitution and statutes); Vargo v. Nat'l Exch. Carriers Ass’n, 376 N.J.Super. 364, 377, 870 A.2d 679 (App.Div.2005) (“Sources of public policy include the constitution, statutes, administrative rules, regulations and judicial decisions.”); Baylor v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 235 N.J.Super. 22, 46, 561 A.2d 618 (App.Div.1989) (“Evidentiary sources of public policy include federal and state constitutions and constitutionally valid legislation.” (citations omitted)), aff'd, 127 N.J. 286, 604 A.2d 110 (1990). Indeed, in Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81, 93, 609 A.2d 11 (1992), we found that in New Jersey, the “highest source of public policy” is our constitution. Thus, restrictive covenants that unreasonably restrict speech — a right most substantial in our constitutional scheme — may be declared unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

VI.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and we reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

*372 For reversal and reinstatement — Chief Justice ZAZZALI and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS — 7.

Opposed — None.

*327VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

This is an action to enforce restrictive covenants in a residential subdivision. After the subdivision’s Architectural Control Committee (ACC) approved defendants’ house plans, plaintiffs brought this action, asserting that defendants’ construction would obstruct plaintiffs’ view in violation of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants. The trial court denied injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals gave no deference to the ACC’s determination and, on de novo review, held that defendants had violated the restrictive covenants. The Court of Appeals, therefore, reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to fashion a remedy. Valenti v. Hopkins, 131 Or App 100, 883 P2d 882 (1994). The issue is whether the decision of a contractually created private architectural control committee is reviewable de novo by the courts, with no deference being given to the committee’s interpretation of the enabling restrictive covenants or to its conclusions on the merits. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

In 1988, plaintiffs purchased their two-story home in the West Ridge Subdivision in Deschutes County. At that time, plaintiffs had an unobstructed view of the Cascade mountains to the west and of the Paulina and Ochoco mountains to the east. At the time plaintiffs purchased their home, the subdivision’s restrictive covenants provided that “[t]he height of improvements * * * on a lot shall not materially restrict the view of other lot owners” and that the ACC “shall be the sole judge of the suitability of such heights.”

In 1989, the owners of the lots in the subdivision approved amended covenants that control the design of newly constructed homes. Article I of the amended covenants provides in part:

“Section 1. Architectural Control Committee.

“(A) An Architectural Control Committee is hereby established. This Committee shall consist of three (3) lot owners with the selection being made by an annual vote of all then lot owners to be held on or about May 1st of each year, with each lot owner entitled to one vote regardless of the number of lots owned. * * *

*328“(B) Generally, the Committee will be responsible for approval of plans and specifications of private areas and for promulgation and enforcement of its rules and regulations governing the use and maintenance of private areas and improvements thereon.

* * * *

“(D) Neither the Architectural Control Committee nor any member thereof shall be liable to any lot owner for any damages, loss or prejudice suffered or claimed, on account of any action or failure to act of the Committee, or a member thereof, provided only that the member, in accordance with actual knowledge possessed by him/her, has acted in good faith.

“Section 2. Architectural Control Committee Consent.

“Consent of the Architectural Control Committee is required for all new construction, exterior remodel, landscaping, and any major improvements upon the lot. In all cases, the following provisions shall apply:

* * * *

“(B) Architectural Control Committee Discretion and Guidelines.

“The Architectural Control Committee may at its discretion withhold consent with respect to any proposal which the Committee finds would be inappropriate for the particular lot or would be incompatible with the neighboring homes and terrain within West Ridge Subdivision. Considerations such as size, height, color, design, view, effect on other lots, disturbance of existing terrain and vegetation, and any other factor which the Committee reasonably believes to be relevant, may be taken into account by the Committee in determining whether or not to consent to any proposal.” (Emphasis added.)

Article II (Restrictions On Use Of Property) provides in part:

“Section 2. Construction and Alteration of Improvements in Private Areas.

“No person, association, or owner shall construct or reconstruct any improvement on any lot, make any change in any lot, whether by excavation, fill, alteration of existing drainage, * * * unless such person, association, or owner *329has first obtained written consent thereto from the Architectural Control Committee.”

Article III (Architectural Rules) provides in part:

“Section 4. View and Building Height.

“The height of improvements or vegetation and trees on a lot shall not materially obstruct the view of adjacent lot owners. The Architectural Control Committee shall judge the suitability of such heights and may impose restrictions.[1] If the Architectural Control Committee determines there is such obstruction of view of adjacent lot owners, written notice shall be delivered to the offending owner. If after 30 days the improvement, vegetation or trees are not removed or reduced in height, as approved by the Architectural Control Committee, the Committee shall arrange to have the removal or reduction completed, charging the owner of the lot the reasonable costs for work done. This section is not to be read as justification to create views not present when the lot was originally purchased.” (Emphasis added.)

Article IV (General Provisions) provides in part:

“Section 2. Enforcement.

“Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any Covenants either to restrain violation or to recover damages and may be brought by any owner in the subdivision. In the event that suit or action is initiated, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in such action.”

Plaintiffs’ lot and house are on the east side of West Ridge Avenue. In 1990, defendants purchased a lot across West Ridge Avenue to the west of plaintiffs’ home. In March 1990, defendants submitted their house plans to the ACC. Plaintiffs objected on the ground that defendants’ proposed house would obstruct their view of the mountains to the west. Plaintiffs understood that the view from their first floor would be obstructed by any house built on defendants’ lot; however, they expected the ACC to protect the view from *330their second floor. The ACC rejected defendants’ plans for reasons unrelated to plaintiffs’ objection. Defendants then submitted alternate plans for a two-story house, which the ACC approved. Defendants later withdrew those plans and, instead, proposed to build another type of house of the same basic design. With some alterations unrelated to height, the ACC approved those plans. Most importantly, the ACC interpreted the subdivision’s amended covenants to mean that, because plaintiffs’ home was located on the east side of West Ridge Avenue, plaintiffs’ lot was not “adjacent” to defendants’ lot within the meaning of Article III, section 4, and, therefore, that plaintiffs did not have a protected western view.2 After the ACC approved defendants’ plans, they began construction. As expected, their house obstructed plaintiffs’ second-floor view of the mountains to the west.

Plaintiffs then filed this action in circuit court, seeking injunctive relief and specific performance of the covenants or monetary damages. The trial court concluded that the ACC had not acted “arbitrarily or unreasonably” in approving defendants’ plans, dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and awarded defendants attorney fees. The court relied primarily on Lincoln Const. v. Thomas J. Parker & Assoc., 289 Or 687, 617 P2d 606 (1980) (recognizing a “fraud, bad faith, or failure to exercise honest judgment” standard of review for decisions of private entities like the ACC). Plaintiffs appealed, contending that the trial court erred in failing to *331find that defendants had breached the amended covenants, in failing to conclude that the ACC’s decision was “arbitrary and unreasonable,” and in failing to grant appropriate relief from defendants’ alleged breach. Defendants cross-appealed, arguing that plaintiffs’ complaint did not state sufficient facts to constitute a claim, because they did not challenge the reasonableness of the ACC’s decision. Defendants also argued that the trial court’s award of attorney fees was inadequate.

The Court of Appeals rejected defendants’ first cross-assignment of error and then concluded that it was not required to defer to the ACC’s interpretation of the enabling covenant or to its findings on the merits, relying on Hanson v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 267 Or 199, 515 P2d 1325 (1973). The court proceeded to review the trial court’s decision de novo and concluded that, within the meaning of the covenants, plaintiffs’ and defendants’ lots were “adjacent” and that plaintiffs were entitled to protection of their view to the west over defendants’ lot. The court found that defendants’ house materially obstructed plaintiffs’ view and concluded that defendants had breached the covenants. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the trial court to fashion a remedy. Valenti, 131 Or App at 109. We allowed defendants’ petition for review to determine the proper role of the courts in reviewing decisions of a contractually created private design committee charged with enforcing a subdivision’s restrictive covenants.

This court has referred to restrictive covenants, such as those at issue here, as “contractual obligations imposed upon all lot owners.” Ludgate v. Somerville, 121 Or 643, 648, 256 P 1043 (1927). Generally, restrictive covenants such as those found here are enforceable. See Alloway v. Moyer, 275 Or 397, 400-01, 550 P2d 1379 (1976) (the defendant must comply with a reasonable construction of the restriction); Donaldson v. White, 261 Or 314, 493 P2d 1380 (1972) (restrictive covenant enforced); Snashall v. Jewell, 228 Or 130, 363 P2d 566 (1961) (same). As a general rule, the construction of a contract is a question of law. Unambiguous contracts must be enforced according to their terms; whether the terms of a contract are ambiguous is, in the first instance, a question of *332law. Pacific First Bank v. New Morgan Park Corp., 319 Or 342, 347, 876 P2d 761 (1994).

In Hanson, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant, a neighboring leaseholder, from building a specific kind of house on his leased beachfront lot that, the plaintiffs alleged, would interfere with their views of the beach and the ocean. Lease covenants provided that lessees

“shall restrict the height of improvements * * * to the end that the view of other * * * tenants shall be preserved to the greatest extent reasonably possible.” Hanson, 267 Or at 202.

Pursuant to “Architectural Considerations” incorporated into the lease, the defendant submitted construction plans to an architectural committee, which approved them. After the plaintiffs obtained a favorable judgment from the trial court, this court reversed, stating:

“The more serious restriction is that height will be limited to the end that views ‘shall be preserved to the greatest extent reasonably possible.’ The sort of a structure which will so preserve the view is, of course, a matter of opinion [emphasis added]. The documents in question leave such a decision to the Architectural Committee. The committee was of the opinion that a few feet of additional height to the [defendants’] house would obstruct less view of consequence than would be the case if the usable square footage in the second story were added to the first floor, thereby creating additional width. * * * Unless this court can find that the decision of the Architectural Committee did not [original emphasis] preserve the view of upland owners to the greatest extent reasonably possible, that committee’s decision should not be disturbed. From the evidence in this case we cannot say with any conviction that its decision did not so preserve plaintiffs’ view.” Id. at 204.

Hanson did not purport to establish, even in dictum, a non-deferential standard of review for decisions of architectural committees charged with applying and enforcing restrictive covenants of a subdivision.

Friberg v. Elrod et al., 136 Or 186, 296 P 1061 (1931), was a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for labor performed *333under a construction contract. The contract provided that “[t]he engineer shall be the sole judge of the * * * quality of the work done by the contractor” and that “[a] 11 disputes or disagreements between the parties hereto shall be submitted to and decided by the engineer and his decision shall be binding upon both parties.” Id. at 189. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs lien claim already had been decided by the engineer and that the engineer’s final estimate of the amount to be paid to the plaintiff under the contract should be accepted. This court agreed, holding:

“Where a contract stipulates that a certain engineer is expressly clothed with the broad authority to determine all questions arising in relation to the work, * * * and provides that after the completion of the work the engineer shall make a final estimate of the amount of work done, and the value thereof to be paid by the builder, * * * the contract does not create a mere naked agreement to submit differences to arbitration, such stipulations are of the very essence of the contract, and such agreement is not subject to revocation by either party, and an award * * *, in the absence of fraud or of such gross mistake as would imply bad faith or a failure to exercise honest judgment, is binding on both parties to the contract * * *.”Id. at 194-95 (emphasis added).

Friberg applied a deferential standard of review to carry out the expressed intention of the parties to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation and to promote finality by upholding the decision of a contractually designated third party. The consistent policy of the law is to encourage the private resolution of disputes.

Lincoln was an action for breach of contract between a road builder and a supplier of gravel. In that case, this court recognized:

“Parties to contracts often provide for resolution of disputes by a skilled, neutral third person. The rationale is that a quick resolution of their differences is commercially more practicable than a potentially expensive lawsuit. When a contract clearly expresses that a third person is to make final decisions respecting specified matters, such *334agreement is enforceable. Such third person’s determination is final, absent a showing of fraud, bad faith, or a failure to exercise honest judgment.” 289 Or at 692-93 (citing Friberg, 136 Or at 195).3

The Lincoln court explained the rationale for deferring to a designated third-party’s decision:

“Normally, when contracting parties agree to abide by determinations made by a third person, they do so in the belief that the third person will make such determinations in good faith, and in a fair, impartial manner. To a substantial degree, the honesty, integrity and objectivity of such third person is a factor in the decision of one to agree that a third person make such determinations.” Id. at 693.

In this case, plaintiffs argue that the ACC’s members are neither “skilled” nor “neutral” and, therefore, that their decision is not entitled to deference under the Friberg standard. We reject that argument. Plaintiffs approved the covenants — including the provisions for the creation and authority of the ACC — knowing that the ACC’s members would be owners of lots in the subdivision who, like themselves, would not necessarily have any expertise in the matters they might be asked to resolve. We proceed to examine the restrictive covenants here to determine whether the Friberg standard of review is applicable in these circumstances.

The subdivision’s covenants expressly provide that “the [ACC] will be responsible for approval of plans and specifications of private areas and for promulgation and enforcement of its rules and regulations governing the use and maintenance of private areas and improvements thereon.” They further provide that “[c]onsent of the [ACC] is required for all new construction” and that “[t]he [ACC] may at its discretion withhold consent with respect to any proposal which the [ACC] finds would be inappropriate for the particular lot or would be incompatible with the neighboring homes and terrain within [the subdivision].” The ACC is given broad *335authority to consider “height, * * * view, effect on other lots * * * and any other factor it reasonably believes to be relevant” in determining whether or not to consent to any proposal. The covenants provide that “[t]he height of improvements * * * on a lot shall not materially obstruct the view of adjacent lot owners,” but they further provide that “[t]he [ACC] shall judge the suitability of such heights and may impose restrictions.” (Emphasis added.) We take the use of the words “shall judge” to mean that in the context of the broad range of authority granted, the ACC is intended to be the final arbiter both as to the applicable law and the facts, with respect to height restrictions.

In summary, the collective wording of the restrictive covenants set out above clearly expresses that the ACC is to make final decisions respecting the relevant issues. We therefore hold that the standard of review articulated in Friberg and discussed in Lincoln — review for fraud, bad faith, or failure to exercise honest judgment — is the appropriate standard of review of the ACC’s interpretation of the language in the covenants here and of its decision on the merits. Plaintiffs neither have alleged nor proved that the ACC’s interpretation of the language in the covenants or its decision on the merits in this case was the result of fraud, bad faith, or a failure to exercise honest judgment.

We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in deciding de novo that defendants had breached the covenants. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for consideration of defendants’ assignment of error concerning attorney fees.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.

FADELEY, J.,

dissenting.

I dissent because the majority opinion permits a subdivision’s architectural committee to determine the extent of its own arbitration jurisdiction, contrary to law. I also dissent because the majority’s analysis and result leave this dispute stranded without access to any forum in which it may be *336heard, and its future application will leave many other potential disputes between lot owners without any mechanism for their resolution. That defeats the purpose of arbitration.

I. ARBITRATORS IMPERMISSIBLY REWROTE VIEW PRESERVATION COVENANTS

In Sloan v. Journal Publishing Co., 213 Or 324, 324 P2d 449 (1958), the court touched upon the scope of an arbitrator’s authority. The court stated:

“The general rule is that an arbitrator derives his authority solely from the submission agreement of the parties, and the extent of his authority is normally a question of law which is reviewable by the courts.

“It is also the rule that an agreement that an arbitrator shall be the final judge of his own jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal before it will be given effect.” Id. at 366 (citations omitted).

In Brewer v. Allstate Insurance Co., 248 Or 558, 436 P2d 547 (1968), the court found an arbitrator’s decision not reviewable. Plaintiffs statutory exception to the award rested on the ground that their arbitrator exceeded his power in that he determined that the claimant had a certain burden of proof. The court rejected plaintiffs claim. The court held that “[t]he arbitrator acts within the bounds of his authority not only when he decides a question of law correctly according to judicial standards, but also when he applies the law in a manner which a court would regard as erroneous.” 248 Or at 561-62.

The Brewer court, id. at 562, quoted Mahaffy v. Gray, 242 Or 522, 525, 410 P2d 822 (1966), for the proposition that “[n] either a mistake of fact or law vitiates an award.” That is so because the purpose of arbitration is to avoid litigation, by the device of settling all disputes that fall in the area committed by contract to arbitration.

Based on those cases, the Oregon rule is that the court will review questions of an arbitrator’s authority to determine the scope of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, but will not review the determination of a matter of law concerning the merits of a dispute, when that determination is made by an arbitrator with express authority to make it. With that *337distinction in mind, I turn to the facts of this dispute between lot owners in the same subdivision.

The subdivision is named “West Ridge,” apparently because of its superlative, year-round view of snow-capped mountains to the west. Plaintiffs and defendants are neighbors who live across the street from each other on West Ridge Avenue. All lots in the subdivision are subject to restrictive covenants to which each purchaser must agree as part of the act of becoming a lot owner in that subdivision. The covenants form a contract among all owners of lots in the subdivision, a contract that restricts the property rights of all owners from the time that they purchase a lot.1

The subdivision covenants provide, in relation to “[t]he height of improvements * * * on a lot,” that each of the “neighboring homes within the West Ridge Subdivision” is to be protected from proposed developments that “would be incompatible with the neighboring-homes.” The subdivision’s Architectural Control Committee (committee) is required to include in its incompatibility decision-making:

“Considerations such as size, height, * * * view, effect on other lots.”

Article III, section 4, of the covenants also expressly provides:

“The height of improvements * * * on a lot shall not materially obstruct the view of adjacent lot owners. The [committee] shall judge the suitability of such heights and may impose restrictions.”

The committee refused to make any suitability decision in this dispute, thus defeating the purpose for arbitration. The committee justified that refusal on two bases.

A. No West View

The committee2 denied any guarantee to plaintiffs of any view to the west, notwithstanding the provisions of the *338covenants. The westerly view is of relatively nearby Cascade peaks.

The committee refused to “judge the suitability of’ the height of defendant’s new construction. To explain that refusal, the committee simply relied on a past committee’s declaration that no one on the east side of the street had any view to the west at all, a denial that impinges on half of the lots on West Ridge Avenue.

At the time that the committee changed the covenants to limit them to views in one direction, its members expressly explained that action as based on the price of the lots. West-side lots cost more. East-side lots cost less. Therefore, the committee declared, regardless of the provisions of the covenants, no east-side lot had any right at all to a view of the snow-capped mountains from their front, west-facing windows, whether the windows were upstairs or down. In short, the committee rejected jurisdiction over half of the disputes or suitability determinations committed to them by the covenants.

That ruling, although it doubtless simplified the committee’s task, cannot be justified under the covenants or the law applicable to them, because it alters the jurisdiction that is committed to the arbitrators in the covenant contract by limiting that jurisdiction to only some disputes, while providing no other method for resolution of other disputes arising under the covenants. The limitation means that the arbitrators will refuse, as they did in this case, to hear and decide real disputes. Under the majority interpretation, no litigation is possible because the matter is committed to arbitration, but no arbitral resolution is possible in these orphan disputes either.

B. Not Adjacent

Later, during this litigation, the committee decision was also stated to be based on an interpretation of the word “adjacent” to not include, for east-side lot owners, any lots neighboring to the west. Lots located across the street from each other were said, on behalf of the committee, not to be “adjacent.” That limitation of arbitral jurisdiction is based on *339an erroneous meaning of the word. And, again, the committee uses that construction to limit its own jurisdiction, stranding half of the potential disputes committed to them by the plain language of the covenants.

In Kampstra v. Salem Hts. Water Dist., 237 Or 336, 391 P2d 641 (1964), a water district sought to charge commercial property owners for the cost of laying a water main. The court discussed the water district’s determination that the property was “adjacent,” stating:

“The term ‘adjacent’ is a relative one and has been held, under other property-assessment statutes, to include non-abutting property which lies sufficiently near the subject improvement to be benefited by the improvement. Lapp v. Marshfield, 72 Or 573, 577, 144 P 83 (1914). See also Clark v. City of Salem, 61 Or 116, 119, 121 P 416 (1912).” 237 Or at 340.

The two cases cited in Kampstra appropriately discuss the term “adjacent.” In Clark, 61 Or at 119, the court declared: “The term ‘adjacent’ includes property in the neighborhood of the improvement though not actually touching thereon. 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, (2 ed.) 1191.” In Lapp, 72 Or at 577, another action involving collecting an assessment for public improvements, the court stated:

“Neither is there any validity to plaintiffs contention that his land does not abut on the street to be improved, and is therefore immune from assessment. The city charter of Marshfield provides that assessments of this character may be made upon adjacent property. This includes lands which, while not immediately abutting on the improvement, lie so near thereto as to be benefited by it: Page & Jones, Taxation by Assessment, § 622; Kirkpatrick v. City of Dallas, 58 Or. 511 (115 Pac. 424) [1911]; Town of Woodruff Place v. Raschig, 147 Ind. 517 (46 N.E. 990) [1897]; Hennessy v. Douglas County, 99 Wis. 129 (74 N.W. 983) [1898].”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 41 (6th ed 1990), joins our case law by defining “adjacent” much more broadly than the committee. Definition of a different word, “adjoining,” taken from the same source provides a useful and telling contrast. It appears that the committee interpreted the covenant consistent with the legal definition of “adjoining,” and not “adjacent.” In Black’s, those contrasting definitions are:

*340“Adjacent. Lying near or close to; sometimes, contiguous; neighboring. Adjacent implies that the two objects are not widely separated, though they may not actually touch, while adjoining imports that they are so joined or united to each other that no third object intervenes. See Adjoining.” Ibid, (citations omitted).

“Adjoining. The word in its etymological sense means touching or contiguous, as distinguished from lying near to or adjacent. To be in contact with; to abut upon. And the same meaning has been given to it when used in statutes. See Adjacent.” Ibid, (citation omitted).

II. THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT SUPPORT REWRITING COVENANTS

None of the case authorities cited and relied on by the majority fits this case. None involves a change in jurisdictional covenants initiated by an arbitral committee or by any other persons established under the contract as the “judge” of suitability.

The majority relies on Friberg v. Elrod et al., 136 Or 186, 296 P 1061 (1931), to establish the “standard of review” for suitability decisions made by a local subdivision committee under recorded covenants. But the Friberg decision was about a “sole judge” who was empowered by contract to establish the amount owed under a mechanic’s lien, not about application of realty covenants. Friberg was based on a contract that gave an engineer-arbiter “broad authority to determine all questions” and made the engineer “sole” judge about amounts owed. Equally important to the Friberg decision was the holding that this court and not the arbiter interpreted the contract, which plainly gave the arbiter authority to determine amounts due to persons performing work. In Friberg, this court did not “defer” to any interpretation of the contract by the arbiter; there was no such interpretation. Nor did the court abdicate the court’s responsibility to construe the agreed jurisdiction of the arbiters as set out in a contract. Rather, in Friberg, this court itself interpreted and enforced the terms of the contract.

On the question of enforcement, the terms of the West Ridge Subdivision covenants expressly provide that:

*341“Enforcement shall be by proceeding at law * * * against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any Covenants.” Article IV, section 2, of the amended subdivision covenants, titled “Enforcement.”

Neither the express terms of the covenants nor the decision in Friberg empowers the local committee to rewrite the terms of the covenants to limit the kinds of disputes that come within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, as the committee did in this case.

Other cases cited and relied on by the majority do not permit that sort of rewriting of the covenants, let alone judicial “deference” to the rewritten terms. In Hanson v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 267 Or 199, 515 P2d 1325 (1973), the covenant provided that neighboring views “shall be preserved to the greatest extent reasonably possible.” Id. at 202. The local committee in that case acted to preserve the views to the greatest extent possible, as the committee saw it. The committee did not say: “No view at all in that direction.” That is, the committee performed the function expressly assigned to it by the contract, as this court (not the committee) interpreted the contract. That case does not involve a “committee interpretation” of the terms of the contract.

Lincoln Const. v. Thomas J. Parker & Assoc., 289 Or 687, 617 P2d 606 (1980), also cited by the majority is a case involving a contract to supply gravel. By its terms, that contract submitted all breach of contract disputes to a designated arbiter. In Lincoln, this court held:

“When a contract clearly expresses that a third person is to make final decisions respecting specified matters, such agreement is enforceable.” Id. at 692 (emphasis added).

However, the court held that the contract itself must be followed and that, when a different person than the one contractually agreed upon had made the determination, that determination was not enforceable.

Lincoln supports the position taken in this dissent, as indeed, do all of the foregoing cases relied on by the majority. In accordance with Lincoln, this court should remand the case with instructions that the contract be enforced, that is, *342that the committee must make an individual suitability decision that includes consideration of plaintiffs’ view. The committee is the “judge” of that suitability issue as to construction of improvements, but the covenants in this case provide that, in making its determination, the committee is to consider the effect on the view from “neighboring” or “adjacent” lots. It does not say that the committee may take away the right to all westerly view front some lots. Moreover, nothing said in Lincoln removes from the court its legal duty of interpreting the scope of jurisdiction conferred by dispute resolution contracts involving real property rights.3

In brief, the majority mistakes both precedent and the terms of the covenant. Decisions of arbiters in a specific case, when made pursuant to a contract, are final. But interpretations that limit the scope of the committee’s arbitral jurisdiction by rewriting the terms of the contract are neither supported by the terms of the contract, nor by the cases cited. Nonetheless, it is the committee rewrite limiting its jurisdiction and leaving many disputes concerning a blocked view without any mechanism for their resolution to which the majority defers, not the suitability decision actually made and based on the pertinent criteria from the covenant contract. Delegation by contract of the power to decide a dispute pursuant to the terms of the contract does not equal delegation of the power to alter the scope of jurisdiction of the arbitrators by altering the terms of the submission of disputes to them that is stated in the contract. The majority simply fails to note the difference and, by reason of that failure, errs.

I respectfully dissent.

¶1 J.M. Johnson, J.

Appellant homeowners (Homeowners) and respondent Viking Properties, Inc. (Viking), own residential properties in a subdivision in the city of Shoreline (City) subject to a decades-old restrictive covenant. The covenant bars racial minorities from ownership of the land and imposes a density limitation providing that there may be no more than one dwelling on each one-half acre. Viking asked Homeowners to release the entire covenant so Viking could redevelop a lot it purchased in 2002. After Homeowners refused this demand, Viking *116filed a declaratory judgment action to invalidate the covenant.

¶2 On summary judgment, the trial court invalidated the entire covenant on the following grounds: (1) the racial restriction was unenforceable and not severable from the remainder of the covenant; (2) the density limitation violated public policy as set forth in the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70ARCW, the City’s comprehensive plan, and the City’s zoning regulations; and (3) judicial enforcement of the covenant would violate Viking’s substantive due process rights. We reverse and remand, severing the racial provision and upholding the density limitation as enforceable.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶3 The parties to this suit all own property derived in title from a common grantor. In 1932, the grantor acquired a block of property located in the Richmond Beach neighborhood of what is now the city of Shoreline and subdivided the block into lots. Between 1937 and 1941, the grantor sold each lot within the subdivision subject to an identical restrictive covenant. The covenant contains four sentences and states:

This property shall not at any time, directly or indirectly, be sold, conveyed, rented or leased in whole or in part, to any person or persons not of the White or Caucasian race. [2.] No person other than one of the White or Caucasian race shall be permitted to occupy any portion of any residence tract or of any building thereon, except a domestic servant actually employed by a White occupant of such tract and/or building. [3.] No building or structure shall be erected, constructed, maintained or permitted upon this property except a single family, detached private dwelling house on each one-half acre in area. [4.] As appurtenant to such dwelling house a private garage, garden house, pergola, convervatory [sic], servant quarters or other private appurtenant outbuildings or structures, may be erected, constructed and maintained.

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 44.

*117¶4 All parties agree that the racial restrictions contained in the first two sentences are unenforceable and void under Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S. Ct. 836, 92 L. Ed. 1161 (1948), and RCW 49.60.224, enacted by Laws of 1969, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 167, § 6.1 However, the Homeowners claim that they purchased and developed their properties in reliance on the continued validity and enforceability of the density limitation contained in the last two sentences of the covenant, which has been continuously observed.

¶5 Today, the subdivision contains 13 lots, each of which is at least one-half acre2 in size and contains only one single-family dwelling. Under the City’s zoning regulations, the subdivision has a prescribed minimum density of four dwelling units per acre. See Shoreline Municipal Code (SMC) Table 20.50.020(1). Up to eight dwelling units per acre are allowed under the City’s “cottage housing” regulations. See SMC 20.40.120, .300(C).

¶6 In July 2002, Viking bought a 1.46 acre lot located within the subdivision. Viking admits that it was aware of the terms of the covenant prior to purchase. Three months after the purchase, Viking’s president sent a letter to each of the Homeowners asking them to execute a total release of the covenant and informing them that they would be sued if they refused. All Homeowners declined Viking’s request.

¶7 Viking thereafter filed a declaratory judgment action in King County Superior Court, seeking an order quieting title and declaring the covenant unenforceable in its en*118tirety.3 After discovery, Viking moved for partial summary judgment. Viking argued, inter alia, that (1) the covenant’s racial restriction is invalid and cannot be severed from its density limitation; (2) public policy favoring higher densities as set forth in the GMA, the City’s comprehensive plan, and the City’s zoning regulations conflict with the density limitation, thereby rendering it unenforceable; and (3) judicial enforcement of the covenant would violate Viking’s substantive due process rights because Viking could not comply with both the covenant and the applicable zoning regulations. The trial court agreed with Viking, holding that the covenant was unenforceable on each of the above grounds, and entered summary judgment in Viking’s favor.

f 8 The Homeowners moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court had wrongfully placed the burden of summary judgment on the nonmoving party. The Homeowners also submitted a declaration from the planning manager for the City, stating that she had consulted with the city attorney and had concluded that the City:

would process building permits on a lot with area that exceeded the minimum densities under the code for the land use district as a nonconforming lot. A plat application creating lots larger than the minimum density for the land use district would be approved so long as the lot configurations proposed allowed for further subdivision to the Development Code minimum density in the future. This has the same effect as a provision allowing gradual but not immediate conformity with the development standards for nonconforming uses.

CP at 310-11. The City’s conclusion would allow for two dwellings to be located on Viking’s lot.

¶9 The court denied the motion for reconsideration and entered a final order incorporating the court’s rulings on *119summary judgment and reconsideration. The Homeowners then appealed directly to this court.

II. Standard of Review

¶10 “This court reviews the facts and law with respect to summary judgment de novo.” Schaaf v. Highfield, 127 Wn.2d 17, 21, 896 P.2d 665 (1995). “In reviewing the evidence, the trial court must consider the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after reviewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); see also Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982).

III. Analysis

¶11 Restrictive covenants are enforceable promises relating to the use of land. See generally Hollis v. Garwall, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 683, 690-91, 974 P.2d 836 (1999); 17 William B. Stoebuck & John W. Weaver, Washington Practice: Real Estate: Property Law § 3.1, at 123 (2d ed. 2004). A covenant that governs a general building scheme designed to make the property attractive for residential purposes is enforceable unless it clearly violates an overriding public policy. See Mains Farm Homeowners Ass’n v. Worthington, 121 Wn.2d 810, 815, 854 P.2d 1072 (1993).

A. Severability of Racial Restriction

¶12 Viking initially claims that the unenforceable racial restriction contained in the first two sentences of the covenant cannot be severed from the remainder, thereby rendering the covenant void in its entirety. It makes several arguments in support of this proposition. Our jurisprudence requires rejection of each.

*1201. Background

¶13 A court’s first objective in interpreting a restrictive covenant is ascertaining the intent of the original parties. Riss v. Angel, 131 Wn.2d 612, 621, 934 P.2d 669 (1997). Where enforceability is challenged, “Washington courts have . . . held that restrictive covenants, being in derogation of the common law right to use land for all lawful purposes, will not be extended to any use not clearly expressed, and doubts must be resolved in favor of the free use of land.” Id.; see also Burton v. Douglas County, 65 Wn.2d 619, 622, 399 P.2d 68 (1965); Jones v. Williams, 56 Wash. 588, 591, 106 P. 166 (1910).

¶14 More recently, however, we have indicated that “where construction of restrictive covenants is necessitated by a dispute not involving the maker of the covenants, but rather among homeowners in a subdivision governed by the restrictive covenants, rules of strict construction against the grantor or in favor of the free use of land are inapplicable.” Riss, 131 Wn.2d at 623. This is because “ ‘[subdivision covenants tend to enhance, not inhibit, the efficient use of land.... In the subdivision context, the premise [that covenants prevent land from moving to its most efficient use] generally is not valid.’ ” Id. at 622 (emphasis omitted) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mains Farm, 121 Wn.2d at 816).

¶15 As such, “[t]he court’s goal is to ascertain and give effect to those purposes intended by the covenants.” Riss, 131 Wn.2d at 623. In ascertaining this intent, we give a covenant’s language its ordinary and common use and will not read a covenant so as to defeat its plain and obvious meaning. Mains Farm, 121 Wn.2d at 815-16. Moreover, “[t]he court will place ‘special emphasis on arriving at an interpretation that protects the homeowners’ collective interests.’ ” Riss, 131 Wn.2d at 623-24 (quoting Lakes at Mercer Island Homeowners Ass’n v. Witrak, 61 Wn. App. 177, 181, 810 P.2d 27 (1991)).

*1212. The Invalid Racial Restriction is Severable and the Density Limitation Enforceable

¶16 Here, the parties are all successors in interest. Thus, the rule of liberal interpretation should apply to protect all the property owners’ interests. Viking disagrees, however, arguing that covenants should be construed liberally only when the covenant’s purposes are in harmony with modern land use regulation. This argument fails for two reasons.

¶17 First, the only authority Viking cites in support of this contention is a law review article authored by University of Washington Professor William Stoebuck. Br. of Resp’t at 13 (citing William B. Stoebuck, Running Covenants: An Analytical Primer, 52 Wash. L. Rev. 861, 885-86, 904-05 (1977)). However, the cited article does not support Viking’s argument, but rather undermines it. See Stoebuck, supra, at 886 (stating that “the judicial tendency for some time has been toward favoring the existence of covenants. While covenants may theoretically encumber titles, as usually employed today they make land more marketable and improve its value.”).4 Moreover, Professor Stoebuck categorically rejects Viking’s characterization of his writings (and its conclusions) in an amicus curiae brief submitted in this case. See Amicus Br. of Stoebuck at 5-6, 9-11.

¶18 Second, Viking’s contention fails to find support in our most recent jurisprudence addressing the construction of restrictive covenants. In particular, Mains Farm rebuts Viking’s argument. In that case, a group of homeowners subject to a restrictive covenant sought an injunction to prevent another homeowner from operating an adult family home business. 121 Wn.2d at 813-14. The covenant at issue provided that “ ‘[a]ll lots or tracts in MAINS FARM shall be designated as “Residence Lots,” and shall be used for single *122family residential purposes only[,]’ ” and that “ ‘no structure shall be erected, altered or placed on the plat of MAINS FARM which shall serve other than a single family dwelling unit....”’ Id. (emphasis omitted).

¶19 The trial court issued an injunction enjoining the operation of the adult family home business and we affirmed, even though the legislature had provided by statute that adult family homes were to be considered residential for zoning purposes. Id. at 822 (citing RCW 70.128.175(2)). This conclusion contravenes Viking’s assertion that covenants are to be construed liberally only when they are in harmony with land use regulations. See also Riss, 131 Wn.2d at 622-24, and Metzner v. Wojdyla, 125 Wn.2d 445, 450, 886 P.2d 154 (1994) (both concluding that the enforcement of residential restrictive covenants is favored in Washington, notwithstanding land use regulations).

¶20 Viking next claims the covenant is not sever-able on the grounds that if only the racial terms are excised, the covenant’s meaning is radically distorted — thereby rendering the covenant invalid. This would be true only if we accepted Viking’s exceptionally strained construction of the covenant’s text.5 But as explained above, principles of strict construction do not apply here, and we avoid forced or strained constructions that lead to absurd results. See, e.g., State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29, 36, 742 P.2d 1244 (1987); Eurick v. Pemco Ins. Co., 108 Wn.2d 338, 341, 738 P.2d 251 (1987).

¶21 Viking also asserts that because the covenant does not contain a severance clause, the drafter’s intentions *123regarding severance cannot be known. However, intent is drawn from the ordinary and common meaning of a covenant’s language. Riss, 131 Wn.2d at 621 (citing Metzner, 125 Wn.2d at 450; Mains Farm, 121 Wn.2d at 815). Under this covenant’s plain terms, it is clear that it was written with two logically distinct purposes: to exclude racial minorities from ownership or possession of the land, and to limit the number of principal dwellings to no more than one for every one-half acre. Not only are these purposes logically distinct, they are textually separate from each other, with the racial restriction contained in the first two sentences and the density limitation in the latter two. It reasonably follows that the racial restriction is severable from the remainder of the covenant.

|22 Relevant legislation also supports this conclusion. The legislature did not declare in RCW 49.60.224 that every written instrument containing a racial restriction is void in its entirety. Rather, the legislature said that every “provision in a written instrument” relating to real property which purports to forbid or restrict the conveyance or occupancy thereof “is void.” RCW 49.60.224(1) (emphasis added). The first two sentences of this covenant constitute such a racial “provision” and thus have long been unenforceable and void. See also Shelley, 334 U.S. 1.

¶23 Quite separate from the racial restriction, the last two sentences provide that only one dwelling may be built on each one-half acre of land. Not only is this the logical, commonsense construction of the covenant’s language, it is also the construction that best guards “ ‘the homeowners’ collective interests.’ ” Riss, 131 Wn.2d at 624 (quoting Lakes at Mercer Island Homeowners Ass’n, 61 Wn. App. at 181). It has been so understood for over 50 years.

¶24 Viking also contends that if any portion of the covenant remains valid, the valid elements impose no limitation on the number of dwellings that can be constructed on its property because the last sentence allows buildings other than the main residence. This contention lacks merit, however, as it disregards the important re*124stricting term “appurtenant.” “Appurtenant” has a clear and long-established meaning: “annexed or belonging legally to some more important thing. . . incident to and passing in possession with real estate . . . .” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 107 (2002). See also Black’s Law Dictionary 111 (8th ed. 1999);6 Webster’s New International Dictionary 134 (2d ed. 1944);7 Black’s Law Dictionary 132 (3d ed. 1933).8

¶25 Despite this, Viking claims that nothing in the covenant prevents appurtenant buildings from being constructed and then separately conveyed. This claim fails because, the moment that such appurtenant structures were separately conveyed, they would no longer be “appurtenant” to the principal residence, thereby violating the covenant. See, e.g., Sandy Point Improvement Co. v. Huber, 26 Wn. App. 317, 320, 613 P.2d 160 (1980) (stating that structure on one lot could not be “appurtenant” to structure on an adjoining lot).

¶26 We conclude that the trial court erred when it ruled that the unenforceable racial restrictions could not be severed from the remainder. Allowing private property owners to protect their rights by entering into restrictive covenants has long been favored in this state. Pursuant to the plain and ordinary meaning of the instant covenant’s text, the racial restriction is severable from the remainder of the covenant and the remainder imposes an enforceable density limitation of one dwelling per one-half acre.

B. Public Policy and the G3VLA

|27 Viking next contends that the density limitation violates public policy as set forth in the GMA, the City’s comprehensive plan, and the City’s zoning regulations. *125Viking argues that the GMA’s “fundamental and overarching policy” is to concentrate development in urban growth areas. Br. of Resp’t at 30 (citing RCW 36.70A.020(1), .110(1)). Because the covenant limits density within such an urban growth area, Viking reasons that the GMA renders the density limitation void or unenforceable. We disagree with this characterization of the GMA and its effects.

1. The GMA Framework

f 28 The legislature enacted the GMA in 1990 to coordinate the State’s future growth via comprehensive land use planning. See Laws of 1990, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 17, codified at ch. 36.70A RCW. The GMA contains 13 expressly nonprioritized goals that guide local governments in the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations. RCW 36.70A.020. These goals include, inter alia, encouraging development within urban areas, reducing the conversion of undeveloped land into low-density development, retaining open space, protecting the environment, and protecting private property rights. Id.

¶29 These goals and their accompanying regulatory provisions create a “framework” that guides local jurisdictions in the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations. RCW 36.70A.3201, enacted by Laws of 1997, ch. 429, § 2; see also 17 Stoebuck & Weaver, supra, § 4.2, at 171. Within this framework, the legislature has affirmed that there is a “broad range of discretion that may be exercised by counties and cities consistent with the requirements . . . and goals of [the GMA].” RCW 36.70A.3201.

¶30 In other words, the GMA does not prescribe a single approach to growth management. Instead, the legislature specified that “the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning, harmonizing the planning goals of [the GMA], and implementing a county’s or city’s future rests with that community.” RCW 36.70A.3201. Thus, the GMA acts exclusively through local governments and is to be *126construed with the requisite flexibility to allow local governments to accommodate local needs.

¶31 Neither the GMA nor the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant thereto directly regulate site-specific land use activities. See Timberlake Christian Fellowship v. King County, 114 Wn. App. 174, 182-83, 61 P.3d 332 (2002) (citing Ass’n of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 141 Wn.2d 185, 188, 4 P.3d 115 (2000); Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873-74, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997)). Instead, it is local development regulations, including zoning regulations enacted pursuant to a comprehensive plan, which act as a constraint on individual landowners. RCW 36.70A.030(7); Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988).

2. Legal Challenges Based on Violations of “Public Policy”

¶32 “The test of whether a contractual provision violates public policy is ‘whether the contract as made has a “tendency to evil,” to be against the public good, or to be injurious to the public.’ ” Thayer v. Thompson, 36 Wn. App. 794, 796, 677 P.2d 787 (1984) (quoting Golberg v. Sanglier, 27 Wn. App. 179, 191, 616 P.2d 1239 (1980), rev’d on other grounds, 96 Wn.2d 874, 639 P.2d 1347 (1982)). Before we will find a restrictive covenant to be in conflict with public policy, the record must demonstrate “a legislative intent to declare a general public policy sufficient to override a contractual property right.” Mains Farm, 121 Wn.2d at 823. A clear demonstration of such intent is especially important in light of the constitutional takings questions that are implicated by the potential violation of such property rights. Id.

¶33 In Mains Farm, as noted supra, we affirmed the issuance of an injunction enjoining the operation of an adult family home on a property restricted by covenant to single-family residential purposes, even though the legislature had provided that adult family homes were to be considered “residential” for zoning purposes. We reasoned in part that *127“[w]hen the legislature intends to affect a private land use restriction (i.e., a covenant) as compared to zoning, it does so explicitly . . . .” Id. at 823 (emphasis omitted).

3. The Density Limitation Does Not Violate Public Policy

¶34 The instant case is an appropriate vehicle to illustrate the effect of public policy. In contrast with the racial restriction, it cannot be maintained that the density limitation has a “tendency to evil,” nor has the legislature explicitly expressed an intent to override contractual property rights, let alone invalidate those that predate the GMA. The legislature has expressly determined that racial restrictions like that contained in the instant covenant are “void.” RCW 49.60.224. The GMA neither states nor implies such an effect with respect to the density limitation.

¶35 Instead, by Viking’s own admission, the GMA was intended to coordinate the State’s “future growth.” Br. of Resp’t at 30 (emphasis added). In other words, Viking concedes, and we agree, the GMA is primarily prospective in nature, and is premised upon the recognition that influencing future planning decisions is more realistic than changing the decisions of bygone eras. In light of this prospective intent, we cannot endorse Viking’s assertion that the GMA, enacted in 1990, overrides a contractual property right executed over 60 years ago.

f36 Viking’s public policy argument also fails to the extent that it implicitly requires us to elevate the singular goal of urban density to the detriment of other equally important GMA goals. To do so would violate the legislature’s express statement that the GMA’s general goals are nonprioritized. RCW 36.70A.020 (“The following goals are not listed in order of priority . . . .”). We are ever cognizant that this is a legislative prerogative and have prioritized the GMA’s goals only under the narrowest of circumstances, where certain goals came into direct and irreconcilable conflict as applied to the facts of a specific case. See King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings *128 Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 558, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). We decline Viking’s invitation to create an inflexible hierarchy of the GMA goals where such a hierarchy was explicitly rejected by the legislature.

¶37 Indeed, although enforcement of a restrictive covenant may impede some of the GMA’s goals, it simultaneously furthers the achievement of others. This observation is not surprising within the context of the GMA, inasmuch as the goals are frequently in tension, if not outright in conflict. See, e.g., 1992 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 23, at 8 (noting that “there is an inherent tension in seeking to accommodate by comprehensive action all of these goals, some of which are in conflict”); 24 Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Washington Practice: Environmental Law and Practice § 18.2, at 174 (1997) (describing the general goals as “vague and contradictory”).

¶38 Here, it is indisputable that enforcement of the covenant furthers certain GMA goals. For example, because restrictive covenants represent valuable property interests, enforcement furthers the GMA goal of protecting private property rights. See RCW 36.70A.020(6) (“Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.”). Likewise, enforcement of the covenant furthers the GMA goal of preserving open space within the Richmond Beach neighborhood of the city of Shoreline. See RCW 36.70A.020(9). Notably, Viking fails to consider either of these goals in its brief, and courts will not replace the City’s determinations with its own preferences. Balancing the GMA’s goals in accordance with local circumstances is precisely the type of decision that the legislature has entrusted to the discretion of local decision-making bodies. RCW 36.70A.3201.

¶39 In addition to its general claims regarding public policy and the GMA, Viking also claims that the growth management hearings boards “have adopted a ‘bright line’ of a minimum four net dwelling units per acre as defining *129urban development.” Br. of Resp’t at 31 (citing Bremerton v. Kitsap County, Wash. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. [hereinafter CPSGMHB]), No. 95-3-0039, 1995 WL 903165, *35,1995 GMHB LEXIS 384 (Oct. 6,1995). The City’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations also call for a minimum of four houses per acre. See SMC 20.50.020. As a result, Viking concludes that the covenant’s density limitation “grossly contradict [s]” the provisions of the GMA, the City’s comprehensive plan, and the City’s zoning regulations and must be declared void. Br. of Resp’t at 29. This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.

¶40 First, Viking’s claim that the GMA imposes a “bright-line” minimum of four dwellings per acre is erroneous. In making this claim, Viking relies upon a 1995 decision of the CPSGMHB. See Bremerton v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039, 1995 WL 903165, 1995 GMHB LEXIS 384, *101 (Oct. 6, 1995). However, the growth management hearings boards do not have authority to make “public policy” even within the limited scope of their jurisdictions, let alone to make statewide public policy. The hearings boards are quasi-judicial agencies that serve a limited role under the GMA, with their powers restricted to a review of those matters specifically delegated by statute. See RCW 36.70A.210(6), .280(1); Sedlacek v. Hillis, 145 Wn.2d 379, 385-86, 36 P.3d 1014 (2001) (stating that public policy is set forth in constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, as well as prior judicial decisions). Accord Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wn.2d 58, 63, 993 P.2d 901 (2000); Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 232, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984). See also Skagit Surveyors & Eng’rs, L.L.C. v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wn.2d 542, 565, 958 P.2d 962 (1998) (stating that the GMA is not to be construed to confer upon a hearings board powers not expressly granted in the GMA).

¶41 Second, Viking’s argument fails to account for the fact that the GMA creates a general “framework” to guide local jurisdictions instead of “bright-line” rules. See RCW 36.70A.3201; Richard L. Settle, Washington’s Growth Man *130 agement Revolution Goes to Court, 23 Seattle U. L. Rev. 5, 9 (1999) (“most GMA requirements are conceptual, not definitive, and often ambiguous”). Indeed, the existence of restrictive covenants that predate the enactment of the GMA and limit density within the urban growth areas are the type of “local circumstances” accommodated by the GMA’s grant of a “broad range of discretion” for local planning. See RCW 36.70A.3201; Cent. Puget Sound Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d at 561.

¶42 Third, although the City’s zoning regulations call for a minimum density of four dwelling units per acre, nothing in the regulations compels property owners to develop their parcels to any particular minimum density. Indeed, assuming without deciding that the Homeowners’ and Viking’s lots constitute nonconformities under the zoning regulations, the regulations provide that they may be maintained indefinitely. See SMC 20.10.040(B), SMC 20.30.280. Moreover, the City has correctly conceded that it “has no authority” to enforce or invalidate restrictive covenants, CP at 201, and explicitly accounted for the existence of such covenants in its comprehensive plan by forecasting that areas subject to covenants would experience less future growth than other areas within the City. Finally, the City’s planning manager, on advice of the city attorney, determined that the covenant was not in irremediable conflict with city policy, and that the City “would process building permits on a lot with area that exceeded the minimum densities under the code for the land use district as a nonconforming lot.” CP at 310. Accordingly, the density limitation does not violate public policy.

C. Substantive Due Process

¶43 Finally, Viking asserts that judicial enforcement of the covenant would violate its substantive due process rights. While the substantive due process claims asserted by Viking clearly have continued validity, see Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 962-65, 954 P.2d 250 (1998), Viking’s substantive due process rights have not been violated in this case.

*131¶44 A governmental action meets the requirements of substantive due process under the state and federal constitutions if the action (1) serves a legitimate public purpose, (2) is reasonably necessary to the achievement of that purpose, and (3) is not unduly oppressive upon a particular individual. See, e.g., Rivett v. City of Tacoma, 123 Wn.2d 573, 581, 870 P.2d 299 (1994) (citing Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 330-31, 787 P.2d 907 (1990)). Viking claims that enforcement of the covenant would be unduly oppressive because complying with the covenant would force Viking to violate the City’s comprehensive plan and zoning regulations.9 This argument lacks merit.10

¶45 Viking concedes that it currently is in compliance with both the City’s regulations and the covenant. Br. of Resp’t at 11. Perhaps more importantly, Viking does not claim that enforcement of the covenant will deny it reasonable use of its property. Moreover, if Viking does wish to redevelop its property, the City has indicated that it would process building permits for Viking’s property that comply with the covenant. Accordingly, enforcement of the covenant here would not be unduly oppressive to Viking.

IV. Conclusion

¶46 The unenforceable racial provisions are severable from the remainder of the covenant under the applicable rules of liberal construction, and the enforceable remainder imposes a density limitation of one dwelling per one-half acre. This density limitation does not so conflict with public policy so as to be void for that reason. Finally, because Viking can comply with both the covenant and the City’s *132zoning regulations, enforcing the density limitation does not impair Viking’s substantive due process rights. We reverse the judgment of the superior court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Alexander, C.J., and C. Johnson, Madsen, Bridge, Chambers, Owens, and Fairhurst, JJ., concur.

¶47 Sanders, J.

(concurring) — While I agree with the majority in most respects I find the discussion of the city’s zoning regulations, which “call for a minimum density of four dwelling units per acre,” somewhat troubling. Majority at 130. Indeed, if the zoning regulations actually required a minimum of four houses per acre, see Shoreline Municipal Code 20.50.020, then I cannot understand how this restrictive covenant, which limits construction on this parcel of nearly one-and-one-half acres to a single dwelling, would not facially violate that public policy.

f 48 So too am I not convinced the planning manager’s affidavit about how she or her attorney would apply the municipal code is competent evidence. Rather this is a legal question to be determined by the language of the ordinance, if necessary aided by accepted norms of statutory construction.

¶49 Yet, this provision of the Shoreline Municipal Code appears somewhat problematic. Indeed the whole issue seems to revolve around a matrix referencing various “standards” to residential zone designations, e.g., R-4, R-6, etc. The line on the matrix relied upon by Viking references “min. density” under the standards column and “4 du/ac” under the R-4 and R-6 columns. I see no further explanation in the code enlightening the reader what this means or how it is to be applied in practice.

¶50 I take it to be the Viking position that this text must mean it should be able to develop the subject property with up to five or six residences, restrictive covenant notwithstanding. Yet Viking adds in its responsive brief:

*133The City also properly recognizes that its minimum density requirements apply only when a property owner elects to develop its property. If owners of developed low-density properties, whether affected by covenants or not, make the voluntary choice not to develop, there is no occasion to require compliance with minimum density requirements.

Br. of Resp’t Viking Properties, Inc. at 39. While I admit the foregoing sounds reasonable, it must also be acknowledged that it conflicts with a possibly more literalist approach that property owners by virtue of the zoning code are forced to fully develop their property to meet “minimum density” requirements — a scenario quite inconsistent with the restrictive covenant at issue here.

|51 However I do believe there is another reasonable way to read the minimum density requirement, i.e., that it is hortative: or aspirational only. Were that not the case, I would think the city might be within its rights to refuse to issue permits for not less than five dwelling units on the subject property or find the property owner in violation of the land use code for not fully developing its property. But how that interpretation would advance the alleged public policy to maximize density is unclear since the owner might lack the resources or inclination to fully develop its property to the minimum density standard, choosing instead to build nothing at all. Indeed, if that were the intent of the city fathers, I would think that the consequences of underdevelopment would be spelled out, and not just left to the imagination.

¶52 There is one other consideration which prompts my conclusion that the minimum density requirement is simply hortative. Morin v. Johnson, 49 Wn.2d 275, 279, 300 P.2d 569 (1956).11 Here I would rely upon that rule of construction which provides that land use ordinances must *134be strictly construed in favor of the property owner. I do not believe a minimum, as opposed to maximum, density requirement in any way favors the property owner except very indirectly in the aberrational situation we have here, where Viking is attempting to invalidate a restrictive covenant. But even here other adjacent and nearby property owners have a like property interest to maintain the viability of the covenant as does Viking to void it. So, on balance, the construction which favors the property owner also favors the validity of the density covenant.

¶53 I therefore concur.