There are five of them, ranging in height from about 6 inches to about 3 feet. Three are Christian figures: an angel holding a dove, St. Francis preaching to the animals, Jesus of the Sacred Heart. There's also Ganesha, a Hindu protector deity, and an Indian chief, a nod to Wolf's Native American heritage.

When she and her husband, Glenn, decided to buy a house in Willamette Landing, a planned development in South Corvallis, the statues went up on the porch and in the yard before the furniture was even unloaded.

"I wasn't going to move anywhere without my statues," Wolf said.

Now those statues have become the focal point of a long-simmering dispute that has pitted the Wolfs against their homeowners' association board, stirred up ill will among the neighbors and prompted an effort to recall three of the five board members.

It's the sort of suburban standoff that has become increasingly frequent as common-interest developments - subdivisions, condominiums and other types of housing governed by an ownership group - have spread across the country.

Because such arrangements are popular with both developers and local governments, experts say, they'll probably continue to spread for the foreseeable future - along with the potential for neighborhood conflicts that test traditional concepts of homeowners' rights.

A question of taste

The Wolfs' trouble started in April, five months after they moved into their $350,000 home on Southeast Shoreline Drive, a winding street of two-story houses with small but immaculately landscaped yards.

A neighbor's complaint prompted a letter from the association's management company suggesting the statues might violate Willamette Landing rules against offensive activities and that they would have to go through the architectural review process for homeowner improvements.

The Wolfs were floored.

Before buying their house they read carefully through the covenants, conditions and restrictions attached to the deed - all 39 pages of them. They realized they would have to pay assessments for yard maintenance and upkeep of common facilities such as the community pool and rec center, and that any construction they might want to do would require approval. And they noted the bans on livestock, recreational vehicles, street parking and junk cars.

But they didn't see anything about statuary.

Rather than submit their statues to a committee review, the Wolfs dug in their heels. What followed was an increasingly testy exchange of letters, e-mails and phone calls between the Wolfs and some of the board members. Both sides hired lawyers, who exchanged some testy letters of their own.

Last month the board offered to settle the dispute, saying it would stop trying to remove the current statues but reserving the right to reconsider if the Wolfs added new ones.

The Wolfs rejected the offer. They assert that nothing in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for Willamette Landing gives the association power to regulate their statues, and the whole experience has left them with a bad taste in their mouths.

"There's a sociological thing that happens when people are put in charge," Glenn Wolf said. "But when it's a homeowners' association, they're really not answerable to anybody. There's no one you can complain to except them."

Now the Wolfs have joined with other Willamette Landing residents (it's not clear how many) to launch a recall drive against three board members - Katrina Anderson, Robert Neary and Linda Johnson - whom they accuse of selectively enforcing the rules, wasting money on legal fees and turning neighbor against neighbor.

"I think the recall right now is the only tool I have," Glenn Wolf said. "They're splitting up the neighborhood, they're harassing people, they're costing people money, and they should be stopped."

None of the association board members responded to a request to be interviewed for this article.

But the board did provide the newspaper with copies of the legal correspondence, which it also published last week on the Willamette Landing Owners Association website.

In a letter dated July 30, attorney Thomas Gallagher asserted that the board was simply trying to enforce the covenants "to protect the livability and the property value of all of the property" within the development.

"The board," Gallagher wrote, "has acted in good faith, with reasonable care and in a manner it reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the association in dealing with the matters discussed in this letter."

Majority rule

Neighborhood conflicts are an age-old phenomenon, but common-interest developments - with long lists of rules and regulations and ownership associations to enforce them - are relatively new.

Over the last few decades, however, this sort of arrangement has spread rapidly. Today, according to the Community Associations Institute, nearly 60 million Americans live in a planned development, condominium complex or some other form of housing governed by an association.

The number continues to grow. Firm statistics are hard to come by, but anecdotal evidence suggests that 80 percent of new housing being built in urban and suburban areas is in common-interest developments governed by covenants, conditions and restrictions, said Frank Rathbun, a spokesman for the institute.

Developers like the approach because it helps them "maximize curb appeal" to sell more houses, Rathbun said, while municipalities like having community amenities such as parks and walking paths that are built and maintained with private money.

Even with more homeowners buying into associations, however, some remain deeply uncomfortable with the regulatory powers of these nongovernmental entities - especially when they run afoul of rules they don't agree with.

"You're always going to have this tension to some degree," Rathbun acknowledged. "A lot of people have the attitiude that my home is my property, it's my castle, and I'll do what I want with it."

But while disputes over the rules may grab headlines, Rathbun says, most people are happy with their community association. A Zogby International study commissioned by the Community Association Institute's nonprofit foundation found that 72 percent of association members rated their experience positive while only 9 percent called it negative (19 percent were neutral).

For many homebuyers, it appears, the benefits of association membership outweigh the potential liabilities.

"It's not just about rules. It's about protecting property values and preserving the look and character of the neighborhood," Rathbun said.

"The bottom line is when you move into a development that has a community association, you agree to abide by the rules of the community association. You've signed a contract."

Second thoughts

The Wolfs say they understand all that. They just can't understand how their statues could have kicked up such a fuss.

"If they were, like, naked mermaids or something, I could see why those might be offensive," Laura Wolf said. "No one has ever said to our faces that it's offensive."

Other things, though, have been said - unpleasant things. While many neighbors remain friendly and supportive, others have condemned the Wolfs as troublemakers, especially since the recall effort began.

The couple insist they're determined to stand their ground and fight for what they think is right. Still, Laura Wolf says, sometimes she wonders if they wouldn't be better off selling their home.

"Believe me, I've thought about it. I've lost sleep over this," she said. "But we can't sell even if we wanted to because our house is not worth what we paid for it."

But if they ever do move, she added, one thing's for sure - it won't be to another common-interest development.

"I'll be honest with you," Wolf said. "I'll never buy a house in a homeowners' association again."