Choice

There's a comment that suggests that Public Choice Theory might be interesting to consider. That's a challenge for an LSE graduate, as public choice in a democracy presents a minefield, peopled by ignorance and chronic self-interest.
Just occasionally the public (whoever they may be) become so stretched and disenchanted by those in government that they rebel, or at least protest. This is often seen as little more than self-interest, and such cynicism presently holds sway, which is unfortunate.
At times there may be those who do consider the wider picture, perhaps even the public good, and who may have no other interest.
With Bloor Homes we have a clear statement of intent. They want to make a profit. They have found a willing partner, Suffolk Coastal District Council, who have land (held in trust for the people) and a deal of embarrassment.
Suffolk Coastal District Council's reasoning is less clear. Eighteen years ago they bought the Herman de Stern building, for just £50,000. Anyone would have done the same. It was abargain. A huge house, in good condition, beside the sea, with excellent transport links and a pleasant town within walking distance. Beside this fine house stood car-parking and about 600 beach huts, much-loved and well-used. It was an area full of 'happy families'.
The Council threw the beach huts off the land, creating a loss of £5.5 million in rental income, and much more in tourist spend in the area.
They threw out the tenants of the fine house, and rejected all plans to develop the house.
The day after the developer went public with their plans the building burnt down.
Cynical?
How can anyone be critical of such a council? They have clearly acted in the public good. Haven't they?
Now they want to give the land away, and to knock down the fine building, even though it is insured for £950,000 - not a bad capital gain on the original investment. Pity it is now all to be lost.
Not much public good to be found: lost rental income spread over 18 years, loss of a publicly owned building, loss of publicly owned land to a private developer in the hope (vainglorious) that profit will be shared.
That's excellent because 'public good' does imply that is hard or even impossible to produce for private profit, because the market fails to account for its large beneficial externalities.
By definition, a public good possesses two properties:
It is non-rivalrous, in that its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
It is also non-excludable, in that, once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access.
Public goods possess these properties absolutely and is for society as a whole, we call these 'the public' not Bloor Homes Ltd. Can someone explain the distinction to Suffolk Coastal District Council?