Property Rights?
I suspect that we define that principle differently.
My read of the article is that Koppel is attempting, through his 'development' scheme, to impose restrictions on the use of property that survive his ownership of it.
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.
If that's what you call 'property rights' then we are 180 degrees apart on the issue.
As for being on the right forum, I've found many who agree with my take on things, and a few who don't.
You would appear to be in that latter minority group.
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.