First of all, the headline is pretty clickbaity -- from the article it seems quite clear that this was a case of competing buyers, and the 8-foot setback is some spurious justification for why one of the buyers didn't move fast enough.
Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regular zoning laws that the city can then adjust as future generations deem necessary.
But third, this particular clause makes sense! You wouldn't want to get rid of it. All the buildings on the block have façades that are aligned with each other, to form a continuous "wall" of buildings. The last thing you want is for some random property owner to get to jut out 8 feet in front of all the other buildings. Ensuring some minimal level of architectural consistency on a dense city block is a good thing.
So keep the eight-foot setback. It makes perfect sense. But just convert it to be a city zoning regulation. It should be decided and modified if necessary via democratic means, not private contract.
Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regular zoning laws that the city can then adjust as future generations deem necessary.
But third, this particular clause makes sense! You wouldn't want to get rid of it. All the buildings on the block have façades that are aligned with each other, to form a continuous "wall" of buildings. The last thing you want is for some random property owner to get to jut out 8 feet in front of all the other buildings. Ensuring some minimal level of architectural consistency on a dense city block is a good thing.
So keep the eight-foot setback. It makes perfect sense. But just convert it to be a city zoning regulation. It should be decided and modified if necessary via democratic means, not private contract.