Property rights, especially with resepct to real estate, define the privileges and obligation with resepct to the use and disposal of the property in question.
One can create a leasehold, for instance, which is a collection of rights to enjoy the propery of another in exchange for money (rent). Similarly, if you own a house, you sell me a right to pass through your property. Not the property itself, but the right. Once I purchased that right, you have duty not to interfere with what I paid for.
Instead of the right to pass through the property, Koppels bought --- I emphasize, bought --- the right to see the sun through the property of others. What happens hear is that people who received money for something want that something back. Well, need I to say that, once you sold something that something is no longer yours. That is the "principle" of property rights.
The neighbors sold their ability to build bigger houses. They received that money in the form of a lower price at which they bought the parcels from the developer who received the check. That ability is no longer theirs, but they want it back.
Koppel merely insists on keeping what is his.
Over 200 words, telling me absolutely nothing I didn't already know...
Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda...
Let's try it again...
...Restrictive covenants convey no authentic benefits to subsequent owners of property. They bind future owners to conditions and uses of property that may severely limit the usefulness of that real estate...
You see? In just over 30 words I fully recognize the existence of restrictive covenants...
I simply don't concede their value or legitimacy.
And that seems to really bother you.
I'm not suggesting a frontal assault on Koppel's Dacha by the uber-peasants, Top. I just hope that he's unable to enforce his bullshit covenants in a lawsuit.
In a nutshell... If Koppel's neighbors can tie that putrid little fistula of the real-estate law in a pretty, fictitious little knot that defeats Koppel & Company then I say more power to them.
Understand?
(please note that your agreement is neither solicited nor required)