I've seen some hot takes elsewhere on this and there's one thing that makes this a non-inflammatory headline: it is a motion "banning most nonresident foreigners from purchasing existing homes or...
I've seen some hot takes elsewhere on this and there's one thing that makes this a non-inflammatory headline: it is a motion "banning most nonresident foreigners from purchasing existing homes or residential land."
So thanks for sharing this link instead of other ones, this one gets to the core of the issue. It isn't about keeping out foreigners or some xenophobic policies, it's about people who don't even live in the country driving up housing prices, investing into real estate without using it. Policies like this are common, work, and are good. In the Netherlands there's similar rules (you need to live x amount of time in the house or something, or be renting it out) which means the housing market is less ridiculous than it potentially could be. London didn't have such rules for a long time (don't know if they do now) and there's streets where there's no one ever there, empty houses bought by foreigners that are just sitting there. imo that doesn't help anyone ever.
Australia desperately need this too. An absurd amount of property is owned by overseas investors that will never step foot in the homes. It's wasteful and a gross abuse of capitalism. Good on NZ...
Australia desperately need this too. An absurd amount of property is owned by overseas investors that will never step foot in the homes. It's wasteful and a gross abuse of capitalism. Good on NZ for taking a stand.
At the same time you have Opposite Day/Mirror World in Hong Kong where the government is intentionally meting out land to foreign investors to prop up speculative value that drives vulnerable...
At the same time you have Opposite Day/Mirror World in Hong Kong where the government is intentionally meting out land to foreign investors to prop up speculative value that drives vulnerable people into inhumane living conditions.
I've seen some hot takes elsewhere on this and there's one thing that makes this a non-inflammatory headline: it is a motion "banning most nonresident foreigners from purchasing existing homes or residential land."
So thanks for sharing this link instead of other ones, this one gets to the core of the issue. It isn't about keeping out foreigners or some xenophobic policies, it's about people who don't even live in the country driving up housing prices, investing into real estate without using it. Policies like this are common, work, and are good. In the Netherlands there's similar rules (you need to live x amount of time in the house or something, or be renting it out) which means the housing market is less ridiculous than it potentially could be. London didn't have such rules for a long time (don't know if they do now) and there's streets where there's no one ever there, empty houses bought by foreigners that are just sitting there. imo that doesn't help anyone ever.
Australia desperately need this too. An absurd amount of property is owned by overseas investors that will never step foot in the homes. It's wasteful and a gross abuse of capitalism. Good on NZ for taking a stand.
At the same time you have Opposite Day/Mirror World in Hong Kong where the government is intentionally meting out land to foreign investors to prop up speculative value that drives vulnerable people into inhumane living conditions.