1. Of course it would be "wise for the developer to obtain them". It would also be wise for the developer to get first right of refusal on a sale of the remaining McDonalds property. It would be wise for the developer to obtain any restriction he can on the adjacent property - and as I keep telling you, that was not going to happen - because of McDonalds having the LEVERAGE because the site has the value here. If you do not believe it, I could not care less. The only thing silly thing here is that you are talking academically about a deal with details that you do not know about and your generalizing is inaccurate. "Perfectly reasonable that the seller agree..." - not at all. McDonalds has too much leverage in the deal. "Who would probably pay a little more for its lot" - not at all, was not going to happen. Your academic generalizations do not accurately describe this deal and the leverage in it. Of course the buyer wants to institute every restriction he can on the McDonalds site. Of course the buyer wants to put in a height restriction. And, as I said in my post that you have continued to argue with - "No major oversight - no oversight, at all, actually. McDonalds has too much leverage in this deal. The site has the value. Not that it is impossible, but good luck preventing a next-door development from general "adverse effect" of your development....too many things a development can do that can adversely affect your adjacent development." You have gone from taking an academic and obvious approach at looking at how to buy a property to extrapolating what is "nonsense" in this deal, "perfectly reasonable" in this deal, that the buyer would "probably pay a little more" in this deal, and then trying to rebut my comment about "good luck preventing .....general 'adverse effect'..." by stating that some restrictions and covenants are implemented "all the time" - which does not rebut what I said, at ALL - I said good luck preventing GENERAL "adverse effect". When you use subjective "nonsense", "perfectly reasonable", and "probably pay a little more" claims in a deal that you obviously do not know about, that is when your argument goes awry. 2. Your request for a document between the seller and buyer to be posted on HAIF is not going to get any more of a response than this. Get serious.