1) 'Occupation' less of an issue, it's 'Ownership'. Foreign owners can rent homes out. Though it's such a problem in Vancouver, they are now taxing empty homes for precisely this reason [1]. Maybe SF should follow suit.
2) That foreign ownership is a primary factor in the rise of home prices in SF, Van, Toronto is completely unambiguous. There's plenty of evidence. The degree of impact is still debatable, but not that it's a major influence. [2]
From those articles you can see the type of demand is 'inelastic' - this is key to understand because it's not just 'a few more buyers'. 2-8% foreign ownership wouldn't mean much at all if they represented the 'same type of buyer' as local buyers. It would be just a small nudge in demand. But the terms they are seeking are completely different and the inelasticity is what makes their kind of demand potent.
3) 'Yellow Peril' (?!?) holy camole. There are foreign buyers from all over the world, it's a big place.
4) This is not just an SF phenom. New Zealand has banned foreign ownership [3]
The problem with your thesis is "foreign" is a throwaway word that doesn't serve any non-inflammatory purpose. It is just as relevant that investors from Texas or Delaware are buying real estate, or, for that matter, SF landlords who live in Orinda.
There just aren't a ton of Texans looking to buy up property in SF because 1) inequality, much as we may not think it's good in the US, is actually not that extreme and 2) places with extreme inequality and hyper concentrations of wealth tend to also be very corrupt places where private capital is likely to take flight.
The 'non resident buyers' in SF/Van/Toronto are going to be from China, India, Russia, some other places like that, not Texas.
Obviously, it takes on different characteristics, depending on.
Florida is a domestic getaway and retirement spot for Americans, so it's a different kind of place.
Non high-growth places like Van and Toronto have large foreign populations which act as points of entry. Chicago, Montreal, Portland ... do not.
SF/Valley has a very unique characteristic of IPO Winners and 'local super high net worth' individuals that's hard to factor - and of course, it's not NY with the possibility of rapid expansion.
> There just aren't a ton of Texans looking to buy up property in SF
I mean, are we just ignoring REITs for the purposes of this thread? TPG and Dinerstein and other domestic interests (I only chose these two because they are from Texas, to directly address your point) have dumped tens of billions of dollars into SF property holdings.
2) That foreign ownership is a primary factor in the rise of home prices in SF, Van, Toronto is completely unambiguous. There's plenty of evidence. The degree of impact is still debatable, but not that it's a major influence. [2]
From those articles you can see the type of demand is 'inelastic' - this is key to understand because it's not just 'a few more buyers'. 2-8% foreign ownership wouldn't mean much at all if they represented the 'same type of buyer' as local buyers. It would be just a small nudge in demand. But the terms they are seeking are completely different and the inelasticity is what makes their kind of demand potent.
3) 'Yellow Peril' (?!?) holy camole. There are foreign buyers from all over the world, it's a big place.
4) This is not just an SF phenom. New Zealand has banned foreign ownership [3]
[1] https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-t...
[2] https://phys.org/news/2020-09-foreign-homes-impact-prices.ht...
[3] https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/thebigdebate/20...