I don't think direct property rights are in question. It's the indirect, or imaginary, rights that have developed afterward, and put into law by established loc

I don't think direct property rights are in question. It's the indirect, or imaginary, rights that have developed afterward, and put into law by established locals to make it difficult to build higher density housing that's up for debate. I don't know a whole lot about it, but in NYC they have some concept of air rights, i.e. a particular 2D plot of land also has a height limit, and somehow those can be changed by buying up two plots and adding them together. And then most everywhere is the idea of "I have a right to this particular view in that direction, and maybe also this other direction over here, you can't build a building to block that view unless you compensate me - oh but wait no I don't want to be compensated actually, I want to just be able to prevent you from building anything." So at one time people resolved such a dispute with bribes, or threats, or murder. And then later on it was resolved with bribes and elections, where only land owners had the right to vote so renters couldn't just come in and change all the rules. Today renters can vote, and basically if your town has more politically involved renters than owners, they can change the building codes, and get more high density housing built or whatever. Anyway, it could be worse: no one wants to live there and it depreciates.