I thought I had put in an answer to this one, but I don't know where it went, so I'll try again. I have seen a few cases where an informal road association had been working well for years, but an attempt to convert to statutory met with surprising hostility. My guess is that landowners may think it will mean more government regulation, or being strictly bound by statutes they don't understand.
My suggestion would be to point out that unlike a non-profit corporation road association, a Statutory road association does not have to register with the State, or with anyone else, for that matter. Also, give them copies of the statutes, which allow a tremendous amount of flexibility. For example, the members can decide whether or not to have bylaws, whether to have a Board or just a Road Commissioner, and what constitutes a "fair and equitable" distribution of costs.
Another benefit is that you can specify in your bylaws what sections of road the association will maintain. This could protect you against having to take on the cost of maintaining side roads in a subdivision that didn't exist when you formed the association. Yet if landowners on the side road benefit from use of the road you DO maintain, they would be required to be members and pay a fair share for their use of your road. Also, the statute protects you from having some members who want the road paved show up and vote to raise everyone's dues several times over to cover the expense.
As to whether or not the landowners can vote NOT to form an association, that would be a good question for the attorneys that speak at our annual conference. On looking at Atty Mary Denison's sample Warrant for 1st Meeting, available on the MARA Resources page under paragraph 7a, I don't actually see an article to vote on whether or not to form an association. I guess the members could just vote NO on all the articles to elect officers and approve the budget, and that would have the same effect as voting not to form a road association.