I agree on the philosophy around organisational structures. In relation to housing this is also a solved problem (hint: it's not solved in the way NZ are doing). In Singapore where I am currently based they have high quality subsidised public housing that is only available to citizens and permanent residents.

Blanket banning foreigners from purchasing does 2 undesirable things. It stops people being able to lay foundations to eventually migrate and it deflects attention from the real solution (perhaps a third is that it encourage cross-border trade but I'm not sure of the reality around that). The real solution is to build denser urban areas with a suitable supply of high quality subsidised public housing. This allows the poorer inhabitants to firstly live in areas that are economically feasible and, secondly, it is well documented that higher density cities have increased economic output of a non-linear nature compared to low density cities. An added benefit is that by fitting more people into less space we reduce our environmental footprint. It should have been part of the Paris climate accord to force cities to zone for building up not out.

Ehm, no immigrating individual ever buys property before having actually immigrated. Unless you’re obscenely wealthy, normals usually immigrate and get ripped off renting a couple years. In the meantime they stabilize, build enough credit data to get a mortgage, explore and learn where they want to setup permanently and then - finally - buy.

Sure they do. If you plan to move somewhere in 3 years and the property market is too expensive where you currently live it's cheaper and makes more sense to rent now and buy where you plan to move (especially since you can't afford local prices in any case).

You forgot to mention that the HDB scheme in Singapore covers about 80% of the population and the private market is also heavily regulated/taxed and prohibitively expensive. Immigration barriers are high and the immigration system is purely based on the needs of Singapore and not any sort of moral obligation towards the rest of the world. (To be clear: i consider the last part to be a good thing). People who use the term "racist" when discussing immigration policies would have to apply it to Singapore as well.

I also live in Singapore, and the high density here has a severe impact on quality of life (i'm using this term in a very wide sense here). I would never use this as a model for my home country. If anything, living here made me much more aware of the benefits of low population density.

Your 2 undesirable things might not be that undesirable for everyone.

If the lower income citizens are taken care of I don't see the issue with heavily regulated/taxed and prohibitively expensive property. It's supply and demand. It couldn't work any other way and it's a much better way to deal with the issue than ridiculous and ineffective knee-jerk blanket bans like in NZ.

Singapore offers a great quality of life. If you don't like it why do you stay here? High density has it's unique characteristics that may be less desirable for certain personalities but if you care about the environment and bio-diversity even in the slightest you would understand that taking a self-centred "I like my garden" approach to housing is absolutely the wrong way to go. This mindset has totally and utterly destroyed Ireland, my home country.

it's certainly not supply and demand if 80% of the market is heavily regulated by the government. nor does it need to be.

i didn't say i don't like it. i said i'm conscious of the consequences of high population density.

this is the first time i'm hearing about ireland being destroyed. do i need to send blankets? potatoes? :)

please cut the hyperbole, it's polarizing and not helpful.