I think you need to provide some links with context because the article makes a compelling case that people are trying to block an indigenous group from exercising their agency.
Do we know that it's not a small few wealthy deal makers selling the land out from under people that wanted to preserve it? I'm not Canadian, so I have no clue. But that would be my immediate suspicion based on experience in real estate and movies I saw on TV.
I agree that's absolutely a possibility. Also not a Canadian. But I will point out that superficially there doesn't seem to be opposition to development on the land. The opposition appears to be based on what is being built rather than where.
I am Canadian and lived a literal stones throw from the site in question for 4 years.
The real issue is that Vancouver is full of NIMBYs who want sightlines, low density, and “character” preserved. It’s basically encoded into the zoning laws for the municipality. Those groups will use whatever tactics at hand to prevent density at a scale they don’t approve of from being built.
I couldn't find the context so, given the tone of the article, I think it's a safe assumption that the author isn't being charitable and is trying to mislead.
