owners. In cases like the present one where the decision to allow a particular use is within the discretion of the board, the board must allow the use unless the use is demonstrably antagonistic to the legitimate objectives of the condominium association, i.e., the health, happiness and peace of mind of the individual unit owners. The Restatement draws the same distinction between the standard for validity of covenants set forth in the CC&Rs of a declaration and the standard for validity of rules enacted by the governing body of a commoninterest community. Thus, restrictions in a condominium declaration are valideven if unreasonableunless they are illegal, unconstitutional, or against public policy, (Restatement 3.1), while house rules and their enforcement are subject to a reasonableness standard (Restatement 6.7 & Reporter's Note). Does this distinction make sense? The court in Basso notes that \"house rules,\" unlike CC&Rs, may be adopted qer a resident acquires their property and thus without the notice that recording of the declaration provides before a resident invests in the community.* Does that distinction justify the diverging standards for validity? Is such a justication consistent with the reasoning of N aman