It unfortunately is "the very least" we can do, though.

> That should drive down our prices

No, in Canada, foreign owned properties make up a tiny percentage of the total, so banning it doesn't actually have any impact. Works as future protection for sure, but that's all.

The "foreign investors" are a convenient strawman that hides bigger underlying problems.

Didn’t Vancouver do this to good effect recently? 20% tax on foreign buyers caused a 15% dip in home prices?

Let them buy it, as long as we can keep building more. The problem is still that supply is artificially reduced.

What incentive do we, as a society, have for foreigners to use our land as a piggy bank?

Given we already have chronic undersupply, shouldn't the default position be to prioritize citizens and others who can demonstrate a greater need?

Assuming we could build more, in theory economies of scale would result from more development happening regardless of who the buyer is. And it would in theory result in overbuilding capacity for that many residents and then being left with spare capacity, the cost of which would be allocated in equal part ideally to the investor properties as well.

You forgot most kingdoms from the gulf.

Of course, a major answer to this problem is to simply ban non-americans from buying american property, but that will implode real estate and hurt a lot of homeowners.

That is the voting middle-upper class. The majority are voters. And they won't want any of that.

> but that will implode real estate and hurt a lot of homeowners

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Homeowners need to get hurt in order for housing to be more affordable. Housing taking up huge chunks of earnings is a terrible state of affairs for citizens and the economy.