Except that treaties are unilateral, and hence not an actual contract, you cannot hold the other party to the contract because they will simply say that you weren't a party to a unilateral good faith agreement they made with some land stalwarts centuries ago. If I make a promise to a city and then I don't deliver on that promise nobody from the city can claim to be a victim even if their life and livelihood was entwined in me delivering on that promise because people are allowed to make all kinds of Grand Gestures and not deliver on them. If you gave me money/consideration for my promise then of course you should expect me to deliver on that promise.
In the terms of a good faith agreement, the very first instance where it was neglected or overstepped renders it invalid/null, in other words the single party that made the promise failed to live up to their magnanimous words.
This is the definition of a treaty:
a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (such as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state (2) : private treaty
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
When there is negotiation for an agreement or treaty, it is not unilateral, meaning not one sided. By all means, one party may be in a stronger position to negotiate with terms and conditions apparently more favorable, but this does not mean it is unilateral nor does it mean one party dictates all the terms and conditions. If that were the case, then this one party can just dictate, there is no need for an agreement or treaty. This one party might just as well set all the rules and punish those who are not following them, and this is call dictatorship.
You can still have an agreement/treaty and one or both parties might not follow through with it, but that does not mean it is a unilateral agreement/treaty. Both parties did sign and agree to the terms and conditions in the beginning so there is bilateral agreement/treaty. Things can happen during the period of the treaty that lead a party to breach the terms, but that does not mean the agreement/treaty is unilateral. You might not be able to contest it (in court or otherwise) due to circumstances such as financing or other terms, but that does not mean the agreement was made unilaterally by one party alone defining the terms and conditions.
In terms of city agreement in your example, there are agreements such as restrictive covenants and caveats that tie to the land and not the person. The terms of these agreements will be transferred to the new owner as they run with the land. However, usually these agreements (i.e. restrictive covenants) might have term limits, which means the agreement with the city on the covenants may end in 40-50 years then the owner can have that agreement (i.e. restrictive covenant) discharged from the land. These matters are related to municipal laws and property laws.
we're not debating history here. It already happened and circumstances and feelings at that time would perhaps be different from today. Regardless, we are only observers, and also are not historians. I thought the point of this debate is on the existence of an agreement/treaty, whether it was breached by non-performance, violence, etc. to render it invalid. If so, how should it be remedied going forward. Are there any remedies available? Not here to re-hash feelings or circumstances of the people from ages ago when the treaty was formed. It's more important to deal with the present situation and find remedies to improve the relationship and/or uphold or renegotiate a settlement.