[S-Man]

The problem with Ottawa (and it shares this with Toronto) is that the topography allowed for explosive and continuous sprawl out into the flat countryside starting in the 60s, leading to the downfall of downtown urban areas. This is a common theme seen in most if not all Canadian cities during this time.
The return of people to the core in the past decade forced Ottawa and other cities to suddenly have to take a look at new urbanism, which it had grown unfamiliar with, and recognize the need for taller buildings and transit in key areas.

The problem, however, is that the people who bought cheap into the urban areas being vacated by families rushing towards the suburbs got used to nothing ever changing. No new buildings, no real vibrancy (except for touristy parts of the city), etc, etc. Now those residents are older, almost all retired and spending lots more time at home, and suddenly other people want to move into the neighbourhood after the size of sprawl has made the city unsustainable.

Who are the community associations run by? People who have "lived somewhere 30 years" and are opposed to "rapid, extreme change". What they don't say is that they bought into an area of stagnancy and nothing has changed for decades, thus meaning that ANY change is big and extreme, and scary.

These people also delude themselves into thinking it is the return to the core, the rise of urban life (and tall buildings) that is raising their municipal taxes, not, in fact, the decades of costly sprawl that the urban influx is a reaction to.

A lot of misconceptions, untruths and lies being thrown about at meetings in Ottawa, with a lot of hysteria and entitlement, too. It seems quite similar to Halifax's situation. And of course, "we're not Toronto" is used to squash any progress thinking in urban planning. The LRT route the city has been trying (twice) to build under downtown gets this argument all the time, even though buses now jam the limited downtown street space and ridership is growing.

Ideology trumping reality.