[onetwo_threefour]

One thing not mentioned in the discussion about inner city rezoning/redevelopment that I run into in my practice is the inordinate amount of power that the 70-100 year old CPR and City restrictive covenants registered against vast swathes of these lots gives to NIMBY neighbour's, and conservative community associations.

Due to a 2002 QB court decision in Potts v. McCann and subsequently developed case law, it is fairly difficult to get the old covenants removed to allow anything other than the existing 'sprawl' use. Even if the City approves of a development plan, these old RC's give a NIMBY neighbour a second kick at someone wanting to redevelop a lot into something higher density. Unfortunately, there is no clear path to removing these from title without getting the other owners on board, and I've seen several developers back away from lot purchases in the inner city for exactly that reason. They could acquire the lot(s), spend a bunch of money planning, and then face an injunction disallowing their build and all we can give them is the advice that they can try and spend some extra money to see whether the neighbours are likely going to be on board, and then try and get the RC removed. Given the time frames and notice requirements involved, many developers just decide to try and go find a lot that's not so risky.

Slava mentioned Mt. Royal earlier, and funny enough, the last person to call me on one of these was with respect to a Mt. Royal property, not too far from Prospect Ave.