[skohan]

> This key problem is in no way solved by the political proposal, as "the rich" can move to buy older real estate instead.

I suspect this proposal has less to do with protecting middle class people's ability to be home owners, and has more to do with preventing perverse incentives around real estate development from having a long-term negative impact on Amsterdam's housing stock.

For instance: look at what's happening in Toronto. There are a massive number of high-end, 1-br condos being built because that's the type of property which makes sense as an investment instrument. Large swaths of the renting population are not served by that type of property, but investors are the customer for real-estate development, so that's what gets built.

[hnarn]

> Large swaths of the renting population are not served by that type of property, but investors are the customer for real-estate development, so that's what gets built.

It all comes down to the same discussion: what are the inherent rights of a native population when compared to foreign capital owners. It's subjective. Your opinion could be anywhere between "money buys you property rights" to "land is owned by living on it" and you wouldn't be objectively wrong in any case, since you're making a moral argument.

The problem appears when a moral argument should enter legal and political reality. When you look at this proposal through the lens of "what will be achieved", it's hard to be optimistic.

[mistermann]

> It all comes down to the same discussion: what are the inherent rights of a native population when compared to foreign capital owners. It's subjective.

Indeed it is, and in an honest democracy a question of this importance would be voted on in a referendum. But before doing that you'd first want the public to be informed of the facts. But in Canada the government won't even do that - we have no idea how much property is being purchased by foreign investors directly, or via proxy friends/relatives who have obtained Canadian citizenship.

[geezerjay]

> Your opinion could be anywhere between "money buys you property rights" to "land is owned by living on it" and you wouldn't be objectively wrong in any case, since you're making a moral argument.

Even that sort of moral argument is short-sighted because natives benefit a lot by investments by foreign capital owners, specially in real estate.

[short_sells_poo]

> There are a massive number of high-end, 1-br condos being built because that's the type of property which makes sense as an investment instrument.

And the funny thing is that the value of those properties comes to a large degree purely out of the overall rise in real estate prices, not because they satisfy the basic human need of a shelter. I wonder what the price of these properties will do when a real estate crisis hits. They are clearly not a place where people actually want to live.