Does a great job of painting how decades of decision making led to this point despite decades of warnings.
The arguments generally given are to show that we're preventing building for density, pointing out NIMBYism, etc, but even if we were doing the polar opposite, the same would be true:
If you have a town that's all single family, and zoning rules pass that any and all buildings MUST be 3+ stories, then all the existing houses wouldn't be allowed under current zoning laws. The fact that they're not allowed under current zoning rules is irrelevant. The question is only if the new zoning rules are good for what you want to see or not.
In contrast, SFH-only zoning is exclusionary.
Sure a bunch of hot-money can easily bid up asset prices. But at the same time it should also drive down yields on those assets. Like you say, the vast majority of these houses aren't being lived in. Nor are the owners sensitive to returns. Why don't more of them put their dwellings up for rent, flooding the rental market and driving down prices?
If all the productive land in an urban area is effectively owned by foreign investors and left to sit, then renters bid up the remaining dwellings until they're priced out of the area. It also becomes more expensive to build in that area so the housing stock can't keep up with demand. It's terrible to let a vital commodity lay to waste.
This would align the incentive system very quickly!
What if I need to drive somewhere in a hurry but my car isn't charged?
What if there's a power outage or I forget to plug in my car overnight?
I'm not saying these are blockers, but they're not convenient.
Is making a trip to a gas station just to fill your car up a good use of time? Or is it better to accept responsibility and make sure you've plugged it in at home? Have you ever forgotten to fill up your gas tank and been stuck on the road? C'mon.