Please read my posts carefully.
1. It doesn't matter whether HOA rules are actionable since most HOA agreements don't contain provisions on sub-leasing.
2. My experience is recent and if you believe it's easy to get a super-majority to change HOA agreements, I have a bridge for sale.
3. The discussion of sub-leasing was in respect to HOA agreements. If you're talking about tenants in the same breath, you're not talking about HOA agreements, you're talking about a rental property.
4. Nor does it make them enforceable. Provisions in residential lease agreement are often both illegal (as adjudicated by the courts) and unenforceable. If they were enforceable, there would be no need for the new legislation the government is trying to jam down the public's throat. E.g if a rental agreement does not confirm to the terms of the fixed term lease law, it doesn't matter what the agreement says about termination, it's unenforceable. And for that matter as far as I'm aware the legality of the termination provisions in fixed terms leases have not been fully adjudicated.
8. Again give me an example where a tenant has been sanctioned (court fines, judgments, evictions) in a way that could force compliance with rules. Why do you think the rental companies all use Recruit, Orix, etc. to bully tenants into submission with daily nuisance calls to their homes and workplaces.
9. Re Oakwood. My point exactly. Why would someone suggest Oakwood as an alternative for someone asking for information on AirBnb.