Winston Peters attacks property rights ...... again

From The Press,

Restoration of the Christ Church Cathedral could be a condition of any post-election coalition deal, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says.

But Winston you don't own the Cathedral. The decision about restoration of it is up to its owners, the Anglican Church, not you. The control rights over the Cathedral are in the hands of the Anglican Church, that's what ownership means.

Peters, who was visiting Christchurch yesterday, called for government intervention and funding for the restoration of the earthquake-damaged landmark.

There is not basis for government intervention. There is no "market failure" requiring government intervention here, its not a public good, there are no externality issues. In short there is no problem that requires government intervention to "fix".

And Winston why should the New Zealand taxpayer have their money wasted on a vote buying scheme for you? The government has better things to do with taxpayer money than buy you a few votes from the anti-property rights, anti-demolition crowd.

The Press continues,

I am seriously committed to this project. It means much more than just the cathedral."

Peters was "very, very confident" a deal could be reached.

Well no. The Anglican Church has made its decision and as they are the owners it is their decision to make, not yours.

Later in the article it says,

Peters said the Government should intervene to restore the cathedral because it was such a significant building.

No, what the government should be doing is supporting property rights and staying out of the whole issues as its nothing to do with them.

This is a huge icon building and critical as a statement of central government belief in the city. We should be intervening because it can be restored and it should be restored.

Who's "we" Batman? "We" should just let the owners of the building decide what they want to do with their property.

The article goes on to quote Peters as saying,

"[The] Government can find all sorts of money for all sorts of projects, including $45 million for the Novopay debacle. This present Government is prepared to put $42m a year into Auckland casino. The cathedral would be less money for far less time."

So the fact that a government does one really stupid thing means it should do lots of really stupid things! Great logic.

Still later the article notes that an

Anglican church spokesman Jayson Rhodes said Peters' comments suggested "the cathedral be taken off the Anglican church".

Exactly! Peters wants to usurp the Church's property rights over the Cathedral.

Property rights may mean something after all.

Thanks to Homepaddock I have been alerted to this news item noting that the Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court ruling that the Anglican Church is entitled to demolish the Christ Church Cathedral. This is, as Homepaddock notes, a victory for property rights.

As I have argued before it is up to the owners of a building what happens to the building. The owners have the property rights over the building, which include the right to bring it down, if they so wish, and the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust - the group wanting to stop the cathedral from being demolished - gets no say in the matter. The news item points out that the Court of Appeal has dismissed all the arguments made by the Trust.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. made it clear as to what ownership means,

But what are the rights of ownership? They are substantially the same as those incident to possession. Within the limits prescribed by policy, the owner is allowed to exercise his natural powers over the subject-matter uninterfered with, and is more or less protected in excluding other people from such interference. The owner is allowed to exclude all, and is accountable to no one. (The Common Law, p193, (1963 edn.))

The Anglican Church has these rights and their rightful exercising of them means that the cathedral can be demolished, if they so determine it should be, and that decision is to be "uninterfered with". The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust, or any other such group,  must be excluded "from such interference", the Trust has no right to try and usurp control over the cathedral away from its rightful owners.

Will they never get the point?

From Stuff comes this bit of "news":

Several thousand people have gathered in Christchurch this afternoon to protest the demolition of the city's Anglican cathedral.

The protest rally began in Cranmer Square and saw past and present civic leaders, MPs and other high profile Christchurch residents calling on the Anglican Church to immediately halt demolition work on the quake-damaged Cathedral

Listen up people, you don't own the Cathedral and thus you get no say in what happens to it. If you want control rights over the building then buy them .... using YOUR money of course.

Former MP Jim Anderton told the crowd that 100 engineers had confirmed the Cathedral could be saved and restoration should go ahead regardless of the cost. If the city could afford to spend money on a new rugby stadium it could afford to restore the city's most iconic building. (Emphasis added)

Regardless of the cost?! Then you pay the cost Jimbo. Don't try and spend other peoples money on the Cathedral just because you want to save it. You don't have the right to force other people to pay for restoration just because you want it. Use your money. And remember there is an opportunity cost to saving the Cathedral,  money spent on that can not be spent on other more important things, you know like sewage and water systems, housing for the homeless etc. Actually Jim the city can not afford to spend money on either saving the Cathedral or a new rugby stadium. Just look at Dunedin to see the problems a stadium can cause.

"Pause, consult the experts and let the public ... have a say about their Cathedral,'' Crighton said. (Emphasis added)

But, and this is the important point, it ISN'T their Cathedral! Property rights over the building are held by the Anglican Church and not by Anna Crighton and her bunch of wannabe owners. They have no right to try and usurp control over the Cathedral away from its rightful owners, the Anglican Church.

Controlling other people's property

As Grossman and Hart pointed out more than 25 years ago ownership is defined in terms of control rights, a point lost, it seems, on some people in Christchurch. If you own a building you have the right to determine whether or not it is demolished.

From The Press:

A last-gasp plea to save Christ Church Cathedral has been rejected by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee.

Campaigners called for government intervention after Anglican leaders rejected a proposal to restore the quake-damaged building.

Brownlee told The Press: "We haven't gone around taking buildings off other people and we are not about to do that with the Anglican Church.

For once I agree with Gerry Brownlee. The Cathedral is owned by the Anglican Church and it is their decision as to what happens to it. Simple.

The Restore Christ Church Cathedral Group has no right to tell the Anglican Church what it can do with its property. But it gets worse,

The Restore Christ Church Cathedral Group had proposed sharing restoration costs between the Anglican diocese, the Christchurch City Council and the Government.

So not only do these people want to usurp the property rights of the Church they also  want the right to tell the Church, the Council and the Government how to spend their money!

Later the article says,

Restore Christ Church Cathedral Group spokesman Mark Belton said the Government needed to intervene to save the building.

"We want to challenge the Government to step in. It is in the national interest to take over this property and fix it," he said.

A translation: we want the government to give us the right to determine what happens to other people's property.

And what the hell is this "It is in the national interest" bit? What is the "national interest" and how is saving this building part of that interest?

There is not need for a debate

There has been a Call for TV cathedral debate. We are told,

A televised debate on the future of Christ Church Cathedral needs to be held, a city councillor says.

Cr Aaron Keown today emailed New Zealand's news networks asking for one to ''host the biggest debate in the earthquake recovery of Christchurch''.

He said the public needed to hear all the facts in an "open and transparent" forum before the "symbol of our city" was lost forever.

and

Keown said last week the cathedral would be demolished "over my dead body".

"I would be in there chaining myself to the building to stop that and I know lots of other volunteers would come in to do that," he said.

Actually no. "We" don't need a debate because it isn't up to "us" whether or not the Cathedral is demolished. It is up to the owners of the building. They have the property rights over the building, which include the right to bring it down, if they so wish, and Mr Keown-or anyone else-gets no say in the matter.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. made it clear as to what ownership means,

But what are the rights of ownership? They are substantially the same as those incident to possession. Within the limits prescribed by policy, the owner is allowed to exercise his natural powers over the subject-matter uninterfered with, and is more or less protected in excluding other people from such interference. The owner is allowed to exclude all, and is accountable to no one. (The Common Law, p193, (1963 edn.))

The Anglican church has these rights and their rightful exercising of them means that the cathedral will be demolished and that decision is to be "uninterfered with" and Mr Keown and his supporters must be excluded "from such interference".

The only group who need to "hear all the facts in an "open and transparent" forum" are the owners and I assume, given that they have made their decision, they already know the facts.

Aaron Keown, or anyone else, doesn't have control rights over the Cathedral and if he wants said rights then he can get them by buying the Cathedral from its current owners. Using HIS money I should add. I'm guessing he could get it cheap right now!

The decision as to the future of the Cathedral belongs to the Anglican church, as they are its owners and only to them. If the church wishes to ask for Mr Keown's opinion that is up to them, but Mr Keown certainly has not right to try to usurp the church's property rights.