The land isn't owned collectively. It's owned by individuals. It seems strange to pass laws that say those individuals aren't allowed to sell to people that are willing to pay more money.
>> What's next TOXIC WASTE DUMPS IN OUR KIDS BREAKFAST CEREAL?
I'm not sure its possible to make a more dramatic statement.
and the answer to that is "because of negative externalities"
The parent arguments are both far more reasonable.
(This happens with domestic buyers too but the problem of huge empty investment properties seems to have come along with foreign investment?)
The parent post may've meant to imply race.
cultural factors may play a role, of course. quality of life is better when you have more things in common with your surroundings. this is about preferences, not perceived superiority though. at the very least you'd want your kids to have a common language with their classmates though.
Not quite.
A wealthy citizen of a 3rd world country has used the fact that he can pollute and treat his staff like slaves - to make tons of money.
He can then go to another country wherein surpluses are spread more evenly - buy up property - and start to dominate those people economically as well.
One could make the cases that 'you cannot buy homes in our country unless you're a citizen of a country with similar rules regarding externalities like the environment, human rights' etc..
Because a lot of this money is coming from countries where all sorts of externalizations are made.
Same thing for manufacturing: we 'stop hiring' in locale A and go to 'locale B' where we can pollute and have slaves. You can't really look at it solely from the context of locale A.
For the same reason different nations have separate currencies, I think we need to separate domicile policy.
How does this reason translate to housing policy?
Housing - and capital inflows/outflows - are primary drivers of inflation! (FYI I know housing is generally not included in inflation targets, but it really should be because it's where inflation can effectively be hidden).
Ergo - strongly related to the issue at hand.
Put simpler: those who come from countries with a different currency should not be able to buy residential property. :)
The challenge for every generation and every society is to decide where to strike the balance between the individual and the group; it's never all one or the other, but always somewhere in between.
And I like this "your land isn't actually yours to do with whatever you please, no limits" idea. Count me in.
... new policy designed to stop soaring house prices ...
... said the new plan was designed to stop rising house prices and will apply to non-residents.
If someone else is willing to pay more the seller should have the opportunity to sell it to them. These laws privilege the desires of some buyers over both the desires of sellers and non-native buyers.
It looks like ban will apply to non-residents rather than non-native. If you're non resident, why do you want to buy? Rent to check out the city, get residency which you'd need to live in a country anyway, then buy.
Housing is a human right, and lots of US cities have all kinds of regulations around affordable housing. I think we're not far at all from "you do have the right to buy a house at a particular price," we just dress it up in fancier language.
I never said that I did.
> If someone else is willing to pay more the seller should have the opportunity to sell it to them. These laws privilege the desires of some buyers over both the desires of sellers and non-native buyers.
And if the areas in question had been rezoned to increase supply instead of reducing demand, that would have privileged the desires of a different group of people.
All laws privilege a certain set of desires over other sets of desires.
Why shouldn't people who live in an area have the right to decide how they want to collectively structure their lives and economics?
The sales of every good and service are regulated.
Capital transfers are regulated.
Taxes are based on different kinds of economic activity.
It's not even remotely strange that non-citizens should get a different tax treatment or whatever for sizeable personal assets.
I'm surprised that people are even allowed to do it in the first place.
I have no expectations that I can just 'go to China or Geramny and buy some houses'.
Therefore we need to consider other subtleties to the act of trading such assets: how are my assets impinging on other assets nearby? Is it butt-ugly, does it fit the local decor, does it drive insane density in the neighborhood, does it drive prices displacing neighbors at an unsustainable pace, does it disrupt the local community, anonymizing neighborly relations, does it damage residents’ way of life?
You see, to not about money alone
Some people are better than others because they are born closer. Let the others burn because as part of the ultra rich (almost all NZ people) I want to be richer and this seems to be the best way.
"foreigner" is not a race, and isolationist or protectionist policies are rarely based on perceived attributes of specific races.
And nationalism isn't always bad, a group protecting members of that group (say based on geography) to the exclusion of the out-group is just how groups function.
It's bad for the economy and NZ society.
But this is politics not rational thought.