It seems there intent is to reduce the number of people who buy property just for investments, and then potentially sit on empty property waiting for opportunities. Banning foreign buyers would just do that, banning foreign buyers, which does not seem to be their intent. Even Dutch people buy property and just sit on it, like what happens in other countries as well.
Not sure how focusing on if someone is Dutch or not will help the situation, compared to banning speculative property investment as a whole instead.
Absentee landlords were notorious for allowing their Irish tenant's properties and amenities decay, while continuing to extracting rent. Yet back at home they were known as philanthropists who gave generously to "their own" poor houses and churches. People tend to care whether or not they are judged poorly, but only by peers and neighbours.
It may not make any difference who the investor is, but then again it may. Also, if the investor is resident, could there be other ways to ensure that they are not simply wringing every cent out of their investment with no reinvestment?
I'd like to see data on who can afford to sit on an empty property. I've heard of Chinese money trying to avoid Chinese government crackdowns or really rich families who refuse to sell empty houses, I don't see how the average investor could afford it.
Not sure how focusing on if someone is Dutch or not will help the situation, compared to banning speculative property investment as a whole instead.