people's hostility or warm friendliness already serves as a vote to encourage or discourage certain neighbors and activities, why not make it formal where housing is not permanent such as apts or mobile home lots or HOA cookie cutter housing
to have a vote about who is allowed to live in your community. or who is allowed to return to stay. every month or so a vote is to be held to see if everyone is satisfied with the living arrangements and who they are sharing the community with. those who are seeking to move out will present their desire to cash out at the time and any people seeking to move in will be elected to fill the empty seats.
but also people may be removed from their lots if there are sufficient votes to want them gone and more people would have to move to be satisfied than the few who are outnumbered by disgusted people ready to leave because of them.
so there is a range of residents and some will naturally fall out of favor. they may be moved to the fringe area or another community. the musical chairs effect where they have to move if their neighbors vote them out. but then to get into another exclusive community they need the votes to get in. (do we want to let just anyone in if there is an empty residence? or what number of vacancies is required before anyone can be allowed in? as a ghost town may be worse than a transitory tourist spot or discount rate destination).
and this is all possible by mobile homes where people can cash out. if they can't cash out then they aren't prone to invest where they are ostracized or repulsed by the effective votes against them by hostile behaviors from unfriendly neighbors. such behavior effectively is a vote against those the hostility is concentrated towards. (there is the competition for limited resources such as sunshine where protected forest blocks other sections of one's yard. garden, pools, sundeck all built where the sun shines and that might be hostile to those across the line it stacks up along if they prefer serenity and less commotion. but it's nothing personal. it's just the preference of an opportunistic necessity. no attack on serenity elsewhere. and so in that case the voters who vote out the people who want to have something that obstructs more effective use of existing resources, can cast a voucher vote to support their admission to a serene place as the reason for their being voted out is due to a condition that would defend their claim to a divergently dedicated place. ie oh you got kicked out of that place? then welcome in, we hate those people or that type of lifestyle or that choice of land use. so when your "haters" are hated by the kind of people you get along well with there is no problem that those people hate you or aren't fond of you. you're better with those who are more like you anyway.)
to help clarify, this is my first post but I write a lot about various issues to try to help make sense of the complex interrelations that often succumb to bullying forces that only the forceful exercise. that leaves those who aren't forceful to be at their mercy due to neither understanding nor having experience with such force to even defend against it. this post explains that people effectively vote already by their choice to give something their all or to save some for themselves when a prospect looks unpromising to reciprocate adequately. it's only practical, and necessary for survival to discriminate this way. so then that community voted adjustment of location could apply as well to residences as to seating places in school/work cafeterias. the only thing i can see necessary to have in place is a safety net to ensure no unjustified ostracism shuns people for reasons they can't help. certainly there are enough people to include fat people or speech impediment people into their little crowds to eat together with that it's not a big problem. that freedom to include people lest they be saddened by exclusion must be preserved. but i'm just saying that if people start getting arrogant and demanding a seat but just don't have the best way of speaking or are fat or smelly or even just having a bad day that the incumbent residents have a right to vote them out. and they have to sit in general seating since they paid to eat or paid their rent to have a guaranteed room in the hotel etc just not a guaranteed proximity to any particular clique group. groups have unique dues they require be paid.
HOAs could evolve to have a cash out procedure. same with any tax collecting system. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to keep paying fees or property taxes when you can't cash out due to policies that you didn't choose (new zoning or bad neighbors) having damaged the market for land that is assigned to you for your purchase of a deeded privilege.