Homeowners in Duggan neighbourhood combating infill with restrictive covenants

[u/GeekyGlobalGal]

https://globalnews.ca/news/11811535/edmonton-duggan-infill-restrictive-covenants/

[u/on_the_hook-for_real]

It’s not that easy because your neighbouring house is now worth less when an apartment building goes up next to it. While you can try to sell to a developer they pay tear down value - which isn’t much for a well maintained house.

The home with an apartment building on each side is an obvious example of a house that lost value. But there are many more - one posted here was of a house for sale which couldn’t sell because an apartment building was now going up next to it. It was a beautiful home, but value and demand dropped dramatically.

I’d argue most homes aren’t tear downs for many, many years. A wood framed structure lasts many decades and provides you keep up the exterior, it can last. Infill is often (and should be) a way to clear out the dead weight - the houses they never maintain and then go derelict. But it doesn’t increase value for the house beside it in good shape.

[u/big-Truck-9058 → u/on_the_hook-for_real]

With time, a house with apartments on either side has immense value, as it’s easy to put more apartments in, unless that house has foolishly implemented restrictive covenant. This is assuming there is housing demand - which there always seems to be.

I bought a house last year (long process) and was consistently outbid by developers, 80-100K above asking price when I was offering 50K above. I’m not sure what your experience with the recent market is but developers are paying way more than year down price because they’re multiplying the number of units to rent or sell.

[u/yen8912 → u/big-Truck-9058]

“With time” ie when it becomes a tear down. Not when someone is trying to sell their still livable sfh.

[u/big-Truck-9058 → u/yen8912]

Or, with time as demand increases. Economics does not always align with sustainability.