Jokes aside, I'm always astonished by how happy countries are to sell off their land to overseas investors. Obviously they'll care less about safety than the locals who live there.
And I'm pretty sure most UK citizens, to use a different example, aren't that happy about the London city center being divided between Arabic and Russian oil oligarchs.
I don’t know how anyone could reasonably see that as a negative, this is foreign investment bringing in vast amounts of wealth to the country.
More importantly you innitially said what is happening could not be seen as a negative. Now you are saying that it is a negative but the blame rests on policy makers and not oligarchs. When did I say who the blame fell on? And how do you explain the change in your argumet from the London city center being divided between Arabic and Russian oil oligarchs not being a negative to now being a negative?
Otherwise, you might end up with a situation like London where the locals become tourists in their old neighborhood. Or do you think any normal person can still afford to live there, after vast amounts of foreign wealth were brought in and prices adjusted accordingly?
The same rules apply to locals, leasehold itself is a very Georgist idea as it is used in modern times.
Leasehold rather than freehold is baked into Georgian ideals of taxing rent-extraction.
For example, Texas has the homestead exemption, where one basic homestead is practically untouchable barring a change to the constitution of Texas or the U.S.