There are a number of issues at play, and nothing can be looked at in isolation. I think that if we are a country/province/region with a desire for more affordable housing prices, we need to consider which ones we would consider to regulate in the context of what is "just". I think that it is helpful to list these issues and consider which ones (or combination thereof) are unacceptable to us and would be just to regulate.
I've read many things mentioned over the past several pages, in countless articles, and in debates with friends or colleagues. In the end, six issues are raised:
- The rights of existing homeowners versus the population as a whole
- The future impact of interest rate increases
- Foreign influence (defined at whatever level of granularity you want) (A)
- Foreign money influence (likewise) (B)
- Investor influence (C)
- Unoccupied property influence (D)
Each of these can be defined in any way we'd like. The first two are debatable in isolation, but the remaining four seem to stand as a consideration on their own. I've built an imperfect (and hastily drawn, given several overlapping areas are excluded) diagram to illustrate how I think that we should look at the issue (i.e. not at all mutually exclusive):
- A: Foreigners purchasing property (or even just residentially zoned property)
- B: Foreign money being used to purchase property
- C: Individuals purchasing property specifically as an investment
- D: Properties being purchased and left unoccupied (however defined)
- AB: Foreigners purchasing properties with foreign money only
- AC: Foreigners purchasing properties for investment purposes only
- CD: Investors purchasing properties and leaving them unoccupied
- BD: Foreign money being used to purchase properties and leave them unoccupied.
- ABC: Foreigners using foreign money to purchase properties for investment purposes only.
- ABD: Foreigners using foreign money to purchase properties and leaving them unoccupied.
- ACD: Foreigners using local money and purchasing properties for investment purposes and leaving them unoccupied.
- BCD: Foreign money being used to purchase properties for investment purposes to which the property is left unoccupied.
- ABCD: Foreigners using foreign money to purchase properties for investment purposes and leaving them unoccupied.
Regardless of what the data says about what proportion of the market any of the above constitutes, we simply should consider which ones are "just" to regulate and pursue regulation. Sizing each of the above can be used to provide an estimate of the size of each of the above, but I do not feel that we should require a certain estimate of the impact of regulation on the overall market (e.g. if we regulate area X, the market will decrease by 3.2%) before we make a decision. The just nature of a regulation should be sufficient.
My 2c.