I had been thinking a bit about the apparent inconsistency between David Seymour arguing against intensification in Epsom whilst simultaneously being part of the ACT party, which wants to repeal the RMA is generally against regulations. I first read about it in Russell Brown’s post The Ides of Epsom.
Apparently, Seymour reconciles these things through appealing to an argument about “property rights”
What I’m arguing is that the people of Epsom have bought into certain property rights and the character of their community …
Now, most economists would agree that it is important to have a good system of property rights,so I was intrigued by this argument. I was going to examine this issue myself, but Eric Crampton has put this to bed quite succinctly in the tweet below. As Eric points out, unless there is a covenant in place, there is no “deal” that is being broken, which is what economists would be worried by.
— Eric Crampton (@EricCrampton) August 24, 2014
Update: Eric has a much fuller discussion on his blog here