It just doesn't make any sense to me how one has anything to do with the other.Sounds like maybe the seller you bought it from, being the prez of the HOA, sold the place to you fraudulently, if he knew you wanted to build on that lot, and he knew you wouldn't be able to.But, this just all isn't making any kind of sense to me. 

It's easier to fraudulently claim.

The city combats this by restricting STRs as there are more non-investors (locals) than there are investors. 

I found an article where State attorney sued his previous company and fined up over six figures for fraudulent dealings - I won't go in details to protect the identity. 

Some people have abused "the system" (or lack thereof) resulting in more difficult environments for animals who are actually working for their handler.Here's to hoping that this is the beginning of the tides changing for property owners and the beginning of the end of fraudulent ESAs and the like.See this BBC article.

It's much harder for someone to fraudulently claim a need or abuse the system when it's at the local level.

But, even without a contract, it's still - reasonable - to put responsibility on a tenant who is responsible to pay all utility bills, to have to notify her landlord of a problem if she then wants to make him/her responsible for the problem.There is a way to present this to the tenant in a non-combatant way. 

She got combative, stating that her business manager and attorney told her that I must accept the check.Seems odd to me.

@Terrell Garren As a combat veteran .11b and paratrooper, I must say that your comment is the absolute perfect response.

(and if not a member already,  consider joining RHA or other landlord groups in the area that, among other things, are working to combat or at least moderate rules like these)