To me it's a moot point: it doesn't matter if there's central planning or rule-based federal coordination or whatever. if you have toxic (foreign) capital using housing as investment objects, that'll drive up the price for everyone and create an affordability crisis.
At its basis, its the scarcity of land versus the ever growing demand. The current outlook is that an additional 1 million homes have to be built before 2030.
This mismatch between supply and demand has been here since forever. As such, prizes rise as far as the maximum affordability stretches.
For example, the transition from single income families to double income families has resulted in prices skyrocketing. More generous loan conditions lead to higher prices.
The government may then conclude that young people are priced out of the market, and lower property taxes. This extra room is then immediately used by the market to rise prices even further.
To put some numbers on this: we now crossed the average home price of 400K EUR, or 476.000$. For a young couple both having median salaries, they can't afford it. They'll need a significant cash donation from parents.
If they're lucky to have that, they still need to outbid other buyers by some 30K at least.
And the most bitter thing is that if they overcome all that, they still have a shit house. Smallish, in a busy street, maybe even just a row house, hugging the neighbors.
At 400k that's not a "maybe" but a "definitely" in all the major cities in the Netherlands.
Housing is only the kind of attractive investment vehicle you describe in an environment where the price is artificially inflated by constrained supply from zoning and other regulations.
I promise you, if the price wasn't rising so rapidly and reliably, investors would find other places to park their capital.
Build housing to meet demand and the investors will go elsewhere.