There’s a budding separatist sentiment in Alberta. No, not that one. This is a move by a small number of homeowners in Edmonton to exempt their properties from the city zoning rules that they don’t like. To opt out, effectively, of a major city hall decision shaping the future of Edmonton.
The movement remains on the fringes, with a tiny percentage of Edmonton homeowners having signed what are called “restrictive covenants.” The city does not track these, but a group advocating for it says such an approach exists or is being contemplated in dozens of neighbourhoods. It is a sign of the lengths to which some people will go to try to prevent change in their area.
Edmonton has moved further than other major Canadian cities in legalizing small apartment buildings in residential neighbourhoods. The policy proposal to allow up to eight-unit buildings was controversial but ultimately supported by council, in multiple votes.
The zoning change led to a surge of approvals for low-rise multiplex projects. In 2025, Edmonton issued more permits for this type of building than for single-family houses. The 310 multiplexes approved, in a city of 80,000 residential properties, would be enough to create 2,350 homes.
However, although the new zoning policy has been in place since 2024, and is paying off with more homes, there remain a number of Edmontonians who don’t accept the adage that you can’t beat city hall. And they have found a novel way to carry on their rearguard action.
With a restrictive covenant, homeowners band together to make a legal agreement not to develop their properties. This agreement is then added to the titles of all the properties involved and binds future owners. Removing a restrictive covenant typically requires the consent of the owners of all of the properties that are party to the agreement.
There is a long tradition, in many cities, of homeowners attempting to control what happens nearby. This can be done by lobbying against development, often through nebulous arguments such as defending “neighbourhood character.”
Covenants seek to enshrine neighbourhood character in law. Crucially, though, the agreement does not bind non-participants. Unless enough homeowners in an area sign up, the possible effect is that the ones who do join in reduce their own property value, because its future uses are constrained, without stopping the change they seek to prevent.
It would perhaps be amusing to contemplate that result – these homeowners hoist with their own petard, as it were – were the concept not so off-putting.
Covenants have been used as a tool of interference, sometimes pettifogging and sometimes nefarious. They have been used to regulate the colour of exterior paint on buildings, to prevent decorations (including flags) being displayed outside, to mandate standards of lawn care and to ban clotheslines. And, grievously, as tools of racial exclusion.
The goal in Edmonton is offensive in a different way. And this is because these homeowners are attempting to do an end run around democracy.
It’s quite legitimate that people might be angry at city hall if they feel they are being ignored. Public consultations can seem stage-managed and the effects of policy changes are sometimes not obvious until they affect a person directly.
But residents are not powerless. They can protest and gather opposition and lobby their councillors. They can fundraise for the candidate they prefer and elect new representatives to undo previous policy changes, as Jeromy Farkas did to retighten zoning in Calgary after being elected mayor last year.
It’s worth noting the timeline of Edmonton’s new zoning policy. It came into effect at the start of 2024. Early this year, a councillor tried to cut the number of units in development projects. Council voted it down. And in April, the rules were tweaked but largely upheld.
In the middle of all this was the 2025 municipal election. Citizens had the chance to register their views. One candidate for mayor, Tim Cartmell, called for clamping down on developments in the middle of residential blocks. He lost the race.
Politicians often enact policies not every constituent favours, because they are governing for the whole and not the individual. For democracy to work, voters must accept that they won’t always get their way. It’s contemptuous for a person who disagrees to try to take their ball – or house, in this case – and leave.
Posted by IHateTrains123