If property is expensive, it means there's a demand for it. The price is a good signal that the area needs more properties built. It's only the gov't (local gov't perhaps, or NIMBYs) that are stopping it from happening.
Raising taxes isn't going to fix the problem. It only forces existing investors who are on the margins to get pushed out.
Because they are a fundamental human need, and in limited supply. Good land is fundamentally limited. You can't build more of it.
shelter is a fundamental need, not the desire to own an asset. You do not need to purchase, as renting is much cheaper (esp. at current asset prices).
And while you cannot create more land (tho tell the dutch that!), you can build more dense. And in an area of growing population, this might be a good solution, as demonstrated in many other cities. However, people who would prefer a single family home with a backyard must be prepared to pay a premium for this privilege.
And my proposal of more investment will indeed help alleviate the lack of shelter by incentivizing more to be built! Taking away investment money for it will only mean a different group losing out vs the existing group. Policies shouldn't decide winners and losers - policies should be made win-win.
All the places I’ve lived with growing populations recently have taught me they will probably do the opposite.
They could also bring in additional property transfer taxes for reach home, taxing people more for each additional property they buy. Singapore does this.
Otherwise hike the tax on real estate while reducing at the same time taxes on local residents.
It's a problem that needs to be solved on the supply side. Trying to solve it on the demand side is like trying to damn a river with a sieve.
I feel a strong tax on houses you don't personally live in (because you rent them or because you're a company) could be efficient, but I'd love to hear other people's take on the subject.