Local municipalities could easily take more protectionist measures like this to preserve basic needs of local citizens. It seems very reasonable and feasible to tax money coming from outside of the municipality so that housing prices (or food prices, etc) don't inflate faster than the growth of the local economy.

I'm thinking of dynamics where geographical wealth mismatches could affect prices. A couple examples I've been exposed to:

  - Chinese investment in Bay Area residences
  - Transient Bay Area tech workers renting in Mission / SOMA
  - Residences being turned into vacation rentals in SF
  - Houston oil money buying residences in Colorado communities
  - NYC, LA, SF money flowing into Austin, both travel and investment
  - Vacation spending and mainland investment increasing the cost of residences in Hawaii

.. obviously many more examples could be cited. You could probably throttle taxes on purchases from any outsiders - foreign buyers, vacationers, business travelers to maintain a balance for residential property value growth.

The counter-side to this is that the wealthiest property owners (local and foreign) benefit from the free inflow of capital. These people may be more influential constituents to municipality leaders than people who would be negatively affected by rising housing prices.