zlacker

>>eswat+(OP)
It's quite bizarre any jurisdiction would allow someone to buy housing there when they can't legally live in it.

>>causi+N4
Why? Should we restrict other investments with similar logic? For example should non-residents not be allowed to purchase vacation properties and lease them?

The impulse to enlist the government to regulate private property and investments is not productive and results in endless encroachment of individual liberties and rights to governments.

>>alchem+67
Yes. Restricting foreigners from owning domestic assets is the beginning. Next comes restricting / heavily taxing domestic owners that own more than one home. Sooner or later, housing gets closer to being what it's supposed to be (shelter and space for people who need it) rather than a financial vehicle.

>>tslocu+4a
This proposal is a slippery slope to economic disaster. First, restricting ownership rights—foreign or domestic—distorts the market, disincentivizes investment, and ultimately harms those it claims to help by reducing the supply of housing. Second, treating homes purely as shelter ignores the reality that property is also an investment and a key component of individual wealth and economic freedom. Imposing heavy taxes on those owning more than one home would not only penalize success but also discourage rental market contributions, exacerbating the housing shortage. The real solution lies in encouraging development and reducing bureaucratic barriers to increase housing supply, not in draconian measures that trample on property rights and stifle economic growth. Let’s not replace a market-driven approach with a command economy that history has repeatedly shown to fail.

>>alchem+3e
> treating homes purely as shelter ignores the reality that property is also an investment

But that's the problem, isn't it? The basic necessities of life shouldn't become a vehicle for speculation.

FTR, all of my wealth is in two homes.

>>denton+sr
Asserting that housing—or any basic necessity—shouldn’t be an investment is a dangerously naive stance that flies in the face of economic reality and human history. Consider food, water, healthcare—all necessities, yet all benefit from private investment and innovation. The collectivist dream to strip away the investment aspect of housing is a recipe for disaster, leading to shortages, degradation, and inefficiency. Your stance isn’t just misguided; it’s empirically proven to fail, fostering misery under the guise of equality. Housing, like any resource, flourishes under conditions of freedom, not under the heavy hand of state control. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history and to jeopardize the very foundations of prosperity and freedom.

>>alchem+7E
Ah yes, who would want to trade the flourishing real estate utopia of, say, San Francisco for the collectivist hellscapes of New York (some rent stabilization and public housing), Vienna (>50% public housing, consistently scores top in overall quality of life globally), or Singapore (>70% public housing)?

Free markets are great, until they start incentivizing weird behaviors (NIMBYism, bubbles) instead of investments (construction, renovations) and efficient allocation.

Successful cities have walked the balance successfully and stepped in (only) when necessary.

>>lxgr+2e1
This argument mistakenly credits collectivist policies for successes but ignoring the profound negative impacts of state overreach in places like San Francisco. This isn’t about choosing between so-called utopias and hellscapes but recognizing the failure of excessive regulation that stifles supply and inflates costs. Vienna and Singapore are outliers that succeed due to unique governance, cultural attitudes towards public housing, and centralized planning that meticulously balances supply and demand—conditions that are not easily replicated elsewhere. The real issue is state intervention distorting market incentives, leading to inefficiencies like NIMBYism and housing bubbles. A truly efficient housing market thrives under free market principles, minimally but effectively regulated to encourage development and affordability. Mentioning New York as a paragon of housing policy overlooks its glaring issues with affordability and efficiency—hardly a model of success. In comparison, cities like Chicago, with a different regulatory approach, demonstrate that a more balanced policy framework can indeed foster better housing outcomes. New York’s situation, far from an example to follow, actually underscores the pitfalls of overregulation and the necessity of rethinking housing strategies.

>>alchem+fm1
I agree in that the right amount of regulation probably heavily varies between places and over time, but I'd just like to challenge the idea that anything other than complete liberalization of housing investments will inevitably lead to inefficiencies.

> Vienna and Singapore are outliers [...]

A model that has to explain away two historically, culturally, and geographically distinct cities as outliers is not very compelling to me.

Again, I'm not proposing that more regulation is always good, but as soon as e.g. long-term residents are massively getting priced out by outside investors or homeowners start opposing new construction exclusively because of the impact on their property value due to an increase in supply (rather than for actual decreased quality of life), the incentives of the free market start drifting apart from those of the people actually living there.