Parking on Public Roads

In a non-gated community, can the association develop its own rules for public street parking?

I don't think the determining factor would be a gate, it would be who owns the roads.

If the Covenants have street parking restrictions then anyone that agreed to the Covenants is agree to the parking restrictions even when the streets(s) are public. Now for one not a member of the association, municipality parking restrictions apply.

I, the homeowner, might not be able to park on the street overnight but a guest of mine could.

I appreciate the careful wording by DeidreB above. My own opinion is that it is more likely than not that state courts would uphold the HOA's right to regulate parking on public roads. The following is what I gleaned from looking for case law.

In 2013 a hoatalk member cited this case: Maryland Estates Homeowners' Ass'n v. Puckett, Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996, https://www.leagle.com/decision/19961154936sw2d21811114.xml. At the latter site, one may click "Citing Case" for other appeals court decisions citing the Missouri decision. I feel only one other state had a decision relevant to the discussion here. See Verna v. Links at Valleybrook Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc., New Jersey appeals court, 2004, https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041054852a2d20211037. Here's an excerpt of what I think is the thrust of the New Jersey' appeals court's decision:

"[The Court] view[s] the association's parking regulation as being similar to a neighborhood scheme created by deed restrictions. Such a neighborhood scheme, like the mutual undertakings contained in the association's governing documents, is a matter of contract, Weinstein v. Swartz, 3 N.J. 80, 86, 68 A.2d 865 (1949), which may, and often does, impose greater limits on an owner's use of property than governmental restrictions, Palisades Prop., Inc. v. Brunetti, 44 N.J. 117, 134, 207 A.2d 522 (1965). While restrictive covenants cannot lessen or avoid the obligations imposed by ordinance, Pullen v. So. Plainfield Planning Bd., 291 N.J.Super. 303, 311 n. 6, 677 A.2d 278 (Law Div.1995), they can restrict the use of property otherwise uninhibited by ordinance, Brunetti, supra, 44 N.J. at 134, 207 A.2d 522; Scillia v. Szalai, 142 N.J. Eq. 92, 98, 59 A.2d 435 (Ch.1948). This analogy further suggests the parking regulation's validity since, like an enforceable neighborhood scheme, the parking regulation possesses the qualities of universality, reciprocity and reasonableness. Olson v. Jantausch, 44 N.J.Super. 380, 386, 130 A.2d 650 (App.Div.1957)."

If other states had disputes about the HOA regulating parking on public roads, how likely is it that these other states' courts would find as Missouri and New Jersey did? The New Jersey court decision lists what look to me like pretty general rules (derived from other court decisions) that I think are likely replicated in all states. I think it's pretty likely that other states' courts would come to the same conclusion as the New Jersey appeals court.

I believe some of these court decisions are BS. Unless the HOA maintains these roads completely, they should have NO rights as to how the streets are used by members or the general public.

Like it or not if restrictions are in the Covenants then one agreed to abide by them, including you.

The proposed Arizona law you mentioned several years ago, and again above, did pass. However it applies only to HOAs, "for which the declaration is recorded after December 31, 2014." From Arizona's statutes:

"33-1818. Community authority over public roadways; applicability
A. Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, after the period of declarant control, an association has no authority over and shall not regulate any roadway for which the ownership has been dedicated to or is otherwise held by a governmental entity.
B. This section applies only to those planned communities for which the declaration is recorded after December 31, 2014."

This suggests to me that legislators were not wild about overriding earlier covenants. Maybe this was because applying part A. above to all HOAs would yield a potential legal battle based in constitutional property rights? It makes me think the rule nationwide is as John, you and I have indicated.

Our Condo requested from the City to have NO PARKING installed on the public street it is located on. Since our Condo has cul-de-sacs, they hired a towing company to tow cars from the cul-de-sacs. One day the towing company towed my room mates car from the public street. Which is not allowed. My room mate paid to get her car back. But in the end, the HOA refunded her money back, because only the City can have cars towed from that public street. The Condo cannot. But it does make one think, that even know it was a public street, it was the Condo that requested the NO PARKING signs.