I understand that the Japanese market has to do with earthquake-worthiness. Nobody wants a house built to 30-year-old codes, likely with 30 years of being lightly and occasionally heavily shaken. So the potential growth in value of the land is largely neutralized by having a boondoggle that needs to be demolished on top of it.
I figure the simple answer is a large tax on non-owner-occupied homes. If the tax rate was 50% or 100% of assessed value per annum, it's unlikely property prices would rise enough to justify holding the asset.
Maybe require 60 or 100 days per year of residence, to be considered "occupied" with excused exceptions like "pandemic travel lockdowns". This would allow for a modest second-house model that keeps daylight between people like elderly "snowbirds" (who maintain a household in Arizona in the winter, and Minnesota in the summer) and the speculators who have no real intention of ever occupying the homes.
I figure the simple answer is a large tax on non-owner-occupied homes. If the tax rate was 50% or 100% of assessed value per annum, it's unlikely property prices would rise enough to justify holding the asset.
Maybe require 60 or 100 days per year of residence, to be considered "occupied" with excused exceptions like "pandemic travel lockdowns". This would allow for a modest second-house model that keeps daylight between people like elderly "snowbirds" (who maintain a household in Arizona in the winter, and Minnesota in the summer) and the speculators who have no real intention of ever occupying the homes.