What Happened to The Vacant Properties Counted in the Census?

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

my school of thought is correct though. We established that without question. Just wanted to clarify that.:)

We established no such thing! Eventually I concluded that you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, so no point flogging him to death

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I have no idea on what is going to happen in the next 3 months and I certainly don’t look to the census data for indicators.

I’m involved in this discussion again because Conductor said the census was proven to be patently false and he suggested that the CSO admitted as such.

Both of these are utter nonsense and I posted on the subject in that context. You responded to push the point that the vacancy data was flawed and I responded in that context.

There’s no point talking about how the data is relevant or not in q4 2020, that’s just more nonsense.

But those numbers was relevant to "prove" no shortage back in q2 2020

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

But those numbers was relevant to "prove" no shortage back in q2 2020

This is tedious. It seems like you are flogging the dead horse now.

Read the preceding posts again and you see that Bubblypop posted :

"They may have been a shortage of affordable properties or social housing, but there is plenty of housing"

Hubertj replied quoting Bubblypop:

"Apologies but this doesn’t make sense to me. Can you back that up with evidence?"

I replied to Hubertj offering the evidence of the CSO vacancy figures, as shown in the post you screenshotted.

So making the exact point then as I am now. Try harder next time.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

This is tedious. It seems like you are flogging the dead horse now.

Read the preceding posts again and you see that Bubblypop posted :

"They may have been a shortage of affordable properties or social housing, but there is plenty of housing"

Hubertj replied quoting Bubblypop:

"Apologies but this doesn’t make sense to me. Can you back that up with evidence?"

I replied to Hubertj offering the evidence of the CSO vacancy figures, as shown in the post you screenshotted.

So making the exact point then as I am now. Try harder next time.

You just agreed that there is shortage few posts ago, and in last post you even cutting out main part of the discussion about that there is no shortage in this country.
they discussed bout shortage, and you provided "evidence", of no shortage.



When those Census numbers speaks about shortage, when they don't? 2020 Q2 was relevant, 2020 Q4 is not?

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

You just agreed that there is shortage few posts ago, and in last post you even cutting out main part of the discussion about that there is no shortage in this country.
they discussed bout shortage, and you provided "evidence", of no shortage.

You're trying to suggest I'm being disingenuous again.

I did not cut out the "main part of the discussion about that there is no shortage in this country" to try and misrepresent anything.

In the interests of brevity I omitted "There is no shortage of property in this country" because it is saying exactly the same thing "there is plenty of housing" which I included.

Yes a few posts ago I agreed there is a chronic shortage of supply currently for sale as I always have done posting on this topic.

Marius34 wrote: »

When those Census numbers speaks about shortage, when they don't? 2020 Q2 was relevant, 2020 Q4 is not?

My comment on the relevance of the census data in 2020 Q4 was:

schmittel wrote: »

I have no idea on what is going to happen in the next 3 months and I certainly don’t look to the census data for indicators

And I had the same view in Q2. The discussion was about the total housing stock in the country, not the properties which were on sale in Q2.

I have been consistent on this since I started posting on here. I'll try and spell it out as clearly as I can for you:

I believe there is currently a chronic shortage of supply of houses for sale and there has been for a while. This also applied to rental properties pre lockdown. This view is based on anecdotal reports, price movements, media reports, etc etc

I do not believe there is chronic shortage in the total housing stock. This view is based on census data, and historical numbers of dwellings per 1000 people.

I believe one of the factors contributing to the current shortage of properties for sale is the very high numbers of vacant properties in the country. Long term averages are 6% but the most recent reliable measure we have is 12%. This view is based on the census data of 2016.

I have no idea what the vacancy rate % is today, but I have seen no credible evidence that is has been dramatically reduced, so I think it is still running in excess of the long term average.

I believe that the priority is alleviating the current shortage of houses for sale should be a thorough analysis of why is the vacancy rate running so far above the long term average.

Such an analysis would involve giving us credible uptodate vacancy figures, ascertain exactly why the properties are vacant and trying to find ways to bring the vacancy numbers down

Unfortunately there has been no such thorough analysis because the government, Fingal Co Co et al, and various members of the public such as yourself have decided that the census figures are bogus and cannot be trusted.

I have listened with an open mind to all the arguments of why people think the census figures are bogus and none of them have yet to convince me that our vacant property figures are not higher than the long term average.

So, if you have any intelligent comment or analysis on the accuracy of the census figures and why my opinions laid out above are incorrect I'm delighted to debate it with you, in the interest of learning something, or discovering some aspect I've overlooked, not considered, misunderstood etc etc.

But if you're just going to bombard me with nonsense, trying to twist my previous posts, neither of us are likely to learn anything, and it's just a waste of both our time.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I do not believe there is chronic shortage in the total housing stock. This view is based on census data, and historical numbers of dwellings per 1000 people.

I believe one of the factors contributing to the current shortage of properties for sale is the very high numbers of vacant properties in the country. Long term averages are 6% but the most recent reliable measure we have is 12%. This view is based on the census data of 2016.

I have no idea what the vacancy rate % is today, but I have seen no credible evidence that is has been dramatically reduced, so I think it is still running in excess of the long term average.

I believe that the priority is alleviating the current shortage of houses for sale should be a thorough analysis of why is the vacancy rate running so far above the long term average.

Such an analysis would involve giving us credible uptodate vacancy figures, ascertain exactly why the properties are vacant and trying to find ways to bring the vacancy numbers down

Thanks, sometimes it difficult to distinguish, when you speak about shortage, if it about property available for the market, or total housing stocks or in some other sense.

1) Household stocks are not great at all in Ireland for high income country. When was the housing stocks any worst than now, adding into account household purchase power & household size?

2) I don't see how large "Census vacancy", contributes to shortage. 2011 "Census vacancy" was 14,5%. That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high.

3) You say long term vacancy is 6%? I don't think that's right. Where do you get this? do we compare apples with apples?

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Thanks, sometimes it difficult to distinguish, when you speak about shortage, if it about property available for the market, or total housing stocks or in some other sense.

1) Household stocks are not great at all in Ireland for high income country. When was the housing stocks any worst than now, adding into account household purchase power & household size?

2) I don't see how large "Census vacancy", contributes to shortage. 2011 "Census vacancy" was 14,5%. That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high.

3) You say long term vacancy is 6%? I don't think that's right. Where do you get this? do we compare apples with apples?

1) We are currently about 422 dwellings per 1000 inhabitants - which you're correct is lower than the EU average, though nothing like as bad as the best in the class. Building 30k+ homes per year is likely to bring us above the EU average.

I am not sure about when stocks were worse than now - I have some recollection of reading they were bad in late 1990s but I cannot find it now. It's true our household size is much smaller now, but have no idea about relative purchasing power.

But I agree that right now is unlikely to be anywhere near the top of list of times when housing stock at its highest taking into account purchasing power and household size.

2) To see how vacancies contribute you have to accept/understand point 3. The long term average of of vacant properties is 6% then we have a surplus of 6% (or approx 120,000 properties) that would otherwise normally be occupied. It stands to reason that if they are not being owner occupied, in normal circumstances in order to be occupied they would have to be offered either for sale or rent.

I'm not talking about flooding the market in Q whatever - the figure deviated from the mean over a period of time, and it will take time to revert to the mean but it surely will.

The comparison with 2011 is worth highlighting. You say vacancies were at 14.5% - "That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high." - the shortages were not apparent because demand was so weak in 2011.

Very easily to instinctively understand why vacancies would be high in a market where houses were not selling, people were emigrating etc.

Less so in a rising market with a growing population where everybody is talking about massive undersupply.

3) The figure of 6% is quoted in many studies in many different housing markets. For example the AIRO info you referenced previously:

When discussing vacancy rates it is also important to look at overall levels of housing oversupply and our expected base vacancy. A base vacancy rate of 6% of total housing stock is normally expected within a properly functioning housing market. For instance, the expected base vacancy for Ireland would be approximately 120k housing units (6% of 2.003m housing stock) – this allows for renovation, changing ownership or changing tenancies. Oversupply is calculated by subtracting the expected base vacancy from the actual recorded vacancy figures on census night.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

1) We are currently about 422 dwellings per 1000 inhabitants - which you're correct is lower than the EU average, though nothing like as bad as the best in the class. Building 30k+ homes per year is likely to bring us above the EU average.

I am not sure about when stocks were worse than now - I have some recollection of reading they were bad in late 1990s but I cannot find it now. It's true our household size is much smaller now, but have no idea about relative purchasing power.

But I agree that right now is unlikely to be anywhere near the top of list of times when housing stock at its highest taking into account purchasing power and household size.

2) To see how vacancies contribute you have to accept/understand point 3. The long term average of of vacant properties is 6% then we have a surplus of 6% (or approx 120,000 properties) that would otherwise normally be occupied. It stands to reason that if they are not being owner occupied, in normal circumstances in order to be occupied they would have to be offered either for sale or rent.

I'm not talking about flooding the market in Q whatever - the figure deviated from the mean over a period of time, and it will take time to revert to the mean but it surely will.

The comparison with 2011 is worth highlighting. You say vacancies were at 14.5% - "That would mean that there were even higher shortage? Obviously that wasn't a case, it was record high." - the shortages were not apparent because demand was so weak in 2011.

Very easily to instinctively understand why vacancies would be high in a market where houses were not selling, people were emigrating etc.

Less so in a rising market with a growing population where everybody is talking about massive undersupply.

3) The figure of 6% is quoted in many studies in many different housing markets. For example the AIRO info you referenced previously:

1) Current stocks is very low by all means, for advanced economy: 407-413 per 1000. Which is a real problem. I'm not sure where you came up other way around.

2) Yes, and that's what I would point out, that demands has much bigger impact on shortage, then "Census vacancy", as it well can be seen from 2011 Census. It makes not much sense to say low supplies due to high vacancy, as we can see from the history.

3) We don't compare apples with apples here.
Even the article says:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." And not 12.3%

"This results in Ireland having an oversupply of approximately 63k properties in 2016. When we look at this on a local authority level we can see that while many local authorities have very high levels of over-supply, a number have an under-supply of properties or have figures very close to the expected 6% base vacancy rate - South Dublin, Fingal, DLR, Kildare, Wicklow etc "
"As we know the highest vacancy rates are primarily in the west and peripheral parts of the country with Leitrim (19.9%), Roscommon (17%), Mayo (16.1%), Longford (15.2%), Sligo (14.4%) and Cavan (14.4%) with the highest levels of vacant units. At the other end of the scale, lowest rates are all within Dublin and the commuting counties. Lowest rates are in South Dublin (3.6%), Fingal (4.7%), DLR (5.3%), Kildare (5.7%), Wicklow (6.2%) and Meath (6.6%)."

So even looking at this report on Vacancy, Dublin commuting counties doesn't have large numbers of vacancies at all, below or around normal levels. Large vacancy is mainly in "west and peripheral parts of the country"

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

1) Current stocks is very low by all means, for advanced economy: 407-413 per 1000. Which is a real problem. I'm not sure where you came up other way around.

2) Yes, and that's what I would point out, that demands has much bigger impact on shortage, then "Census vacancy", as it well can be seen from 2011 Census. It makes not much sense to say low supplies due to high vacancy, as we can see from the history.

3) We don't compare apples with apples here.
Even the article says:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." And not 12.3%

"This results in Ireland having an oversupply of approximately 63k properties in 2016. When we look at this on a local authority level we can see that while many local authorities have very high levels of over-supply, a number have an under-supply of properties or have figures very close to the expected 6% base vacancy rate - South Dublin, Fingal, DLR, Kildare, Wicklow etc "
"As we know the highest vacancy rates are primarily in the west and peripheral parts of the country with Leitrim (19.9%), Roscommon (17%), Mayo (16.1%), Longford (15.2%), Sligo (14.4%) and Cavan (14.4%) with the highest levels of vacant units. At the other end of the scale, lowest rates are all within Dublin and the commuting counties. Lowest rates are in South Dublin (3.6%), Fingal (4.7%), DLR (5.3%), Kildare (5.7%), Wicklow (6.2%) and Meath (6.6%)."

So even looking at this report on Vacancy, Dublin commuting counties doesn't have large numbers of vacancies at all, below or around normal levels. Large vacancy is mainly in "west and peripheral parts of the country"

Ok, happy to debate the above with you and drill into the figures, but are you accepting that the census data is a reasonable source to start with?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, happy to debate the above with you and drill into the figures, but are you accepting that the census data is a reasonable source to start with?

Yes, that's what I told few times.

Marius34 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. I think the Census report is a great thing, and it provides lots of useful details. I think the numbers make sense, what i'm not happy, about misusing those number. The vacancy from their data doesn't mean that it has no permanent resident in it, and it is in livable conditions. It simply wrong to use those number as of vacant properties in supply side.

That's why CSO is reasonable in its own way, whereas GeoDirectory is much better as vacancy data, since it is much closer related to what we typical imagine property as vacant.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

2) Yes, and that's what I would point out, that demands has much bigger impact on shortage, then "Census vacancy", as it well can be seen from 2011 Census. It makes not much sense to say low supplies due to high vacancy, as we can see from the history.

I think it makes perfect sense to conclude if people are choosing to keep properties vacant rather than sell them or rent them then stock for sale or rent will be reduced. For whatever reason I think we are struggling to understand each others position on this.

Marius34 wrote: »

3) We don't compare apples with apples here.
Even the article says:
"Our main interest here is in the 183k vacant units which accounts for 9.1% of the housing stock across Ireland." And not 12.3%

Ok, that's a fair point - the 12% figures include vacant holiday homes - the vast majority of which are far less likely to be suitable/available for permanent occupation, assuming they constitute dwellings like a cottage in Caherdaniel for instance.

What about holiday homes in RPZs? - in terms of assessing the efficient allocation of the existing housing stock it is worth looking not only the number of such properties but also the trend. Eg

In Dublin City alone, there were 700 extra dwellings used for seasonal purposes (322 to 1,022) when compared with 2011, representing a 217 per cent rise.

It strikes me as slightly odd that we'd see 217% increase in Irish keeping a holiday home in areas like Temple Bar and the Docklands. Maybe nothing to see here but certainly it seems odd enough to take a closer look at the make up of holiday homes in the whole of Dublin and other RPZs - (RPZs are by definition where current supply is tightest)

If for example it was discovered that these properties were operating as STLs rather than genuine holiday homes, that is a potential immediate source of supply to market.

Marius34 wrote: »

"This results in Ireland having an oversupply of approximately 63k properties in 2016. When we look at this on a local authority level we can see that while many local authorities have very high levels of over-supply, a number have an under-supply of properties or have figures very close to the expected 6% base vacancy rate - South Dublin, Fingal, DLR, Kildare, Wicklow etc "
"As we know the highest vacancy rates are primarily in the west and peripheral parts of the country with Leitrim (19.9%), Roscommon (17%), Mayo (16.1%), Longford (15.2%), Sligo (14.4%) and Cavan (14.4%) with the highest levels of vacant units. At the other end of the scale, lowest rates are all within Dublin and the commuting counties. Lowest rates are in South Dublin (3.6%), Fingal (4.7%), DLR (5.3%), Kildare (5.7%), Wicklow (6.2%) and Meath (6.6%)."

So even looking at this report on Vacancy, Dublin commuting counties doesn't have large numbers of vacancies at all, below or around normal levels. Large vacancy is mainly in "west and peripheral parts of the country"

Ok, that's another fair point, Leitrim and Roscommon etc are skewing the numbers. Having said that, whether the national vacancy rate is running above or below the long term average you would always expect Dublin and commuter counties to be lower that the national %, so it is definitely worth having a closer look at Dublin and the RPZ areas.

I noticed you omitted the figures for the cities:

Rates in our main cities are all higher than these counties with rates of 7.7% in Dublin City and Cork City, 8.4% in Galway City, 9.4% in Limerick City and County and 9.9% in Waterford City and County

The figure for Dublin city represents an oversupply of approximately 5000 properties. Why is that? It seems counterintuitive and worth further analysis.

Recently Vacant.

Recently vacant means property was occupied in 2011 but vacant in 2016. The vast majority of these are vacant because they are actively on the market for sale or for rent, representing the normal turnover expected in a functioning market.

As expected, highest rates are all within the main urban areas where the housing market is most active with Dublin City (61%), South Dublin (59.9%), DLR (58.7%) and Cork City (57.2%) having the highest proportion of ‘recently vacant’ properties....

....In Dublin City this is particularly high with 15% of all vacant properties classed as being For Rent. As such almost one quarter of all ‘recently vacant’ properties within Dublin City (2,758 of 11,238) were actively on the housing market – either For Sale or For Rent on census night

That all seems normal, nothing to see here, right? Take a closer look:



So on census night, 24th April 2016, there were 3757 properties vacant in Dublin city and suburbs because they were available to rent. What I find a bit odd is that the Daft Rental Report Q2 2016 says that in Dublin there were " just 1,100 properties available to rent at the start of May"

That seems a bit odd to me. What do you make of that?

Nationwide on census night there are 10,350 vacant properties that are "available for rent" - yet Daft finds that " there were just 3,082 properties on the market nationwide at the start of May, the lowest on record."

I find this a bit odd and think it merits a closer look. Don't you?

Also worth bearing in mind that these figures are based on the vacancies that we know the reason for - there are further 15,940 vacancies in Dublin City & Suburbs that we don't know why they are vacant.

Long term vacancies

The second category is based on properties that were vacant in both 2011 and 2016 and can be classed as ‘long-term vacant’ units. At a total of 65,039 or 35.5% of total vacant units, these properties account for 3.2% of the total housing stock...

...Again, and as expected, lowest rates are within cities and commuters areas - South Dublin (14.8%), Fingal (16.3%), DLR (18.7%) and Dublin City (20.2%)

Figure 9 below details the recorded reason for vacancy of the ‘long-term vacant’ units. Dublin local authorities have a much higher rate of For Sale and For Rent than the State average. Dublin City recorded more than twice the rate of For Rent than other Dublin local authorities with almost 16% of all vacant units on the rental market.

According to these findings, between 2011-2016, a period where both sales and rental price are experiencing exceptional annual growth, and supply is at record lows, and are in the middle of a housing crisis, there are a large number of properties that are either failed to find a buyer or tenant, or just coincidentally happened to be for sale or rent on consecutive census nights.

I find that a bit odd and think it merits a closer look. Don't you?

The closer I look at the numbers the more I wonder about these vacancies, it seems too high, why are they vacant?, I wish the government would study them a bit more closely rather than saying "Pfft the CSO got it wrong, talk to Fingal Co Co, they're on the ball".

I suspect that out of the 230k vacant properties (including holiday homes) there is the potential to fairly quickly bring back 20-30k into circulation in RPZs, and I think that would make a big difference in the short/medium term.

In the longer term it strikes me that we could make much more efficient use of our existing housing stock. Tackling the vacancies is a good place to start.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I think it makes perfect sense to conclude if people are choosing to keep properties vacant rather than sell them or rent them then stock for sale or rent will be reduced. For whatever reason I think we are struggling to understand each others position on this.

2)
We just discussed, that those "Census vacancy", that large part of 250.000 those properties are in use by people. It's not kept vacant for long.
Properties not in livable conditions ready to be knocked down, how this can be for sale or rent?
Person decided to renovate his home. How this can be for sale or rent?
Person living with family or renting a room, bought a house and trying to renovate before moving in. Why he should put for sale or rent?
And many other cases..

What you just saying about use for rent/sale, its for long term vacancy (over 6 months), which is NOT 12.3% as of "Census vacancy".

So keep consistent.

Low supplies, because there is high vacancy?
High supplies happens when there is low vacancy?

Makes no sense.
I just showed you 2011 with higher supplies, and higher vacancy.
Supplies and vacancy was going down hand in hand between 2011 and 2016.


Stick with what vacancy we talking "Census vacancy", or typical long term vacancy, that can be utilized for Sale/Rent.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

2)
We just discussed, that those "Census vacancy", that large part of 250.000 those properties are in use by people. It's not kept vacant for long.
Properties not in livable conditions ready to be knocked down, how this can be for sale or rent?
Person decided to renovate his home. How this can be for sale or rent?
Person living with family or renting a room, bought a house and trying to renovate before moving in. Why he should put for sale or rent?
And many other cases..

What you just saying about use for rent/sale, its for long term vacancy (over 6 months), which is NOT 12.3% as of "Census vacancy".

So keep consistent.

Low supplies, because there is high vacancy?
High supplies happens when there is low vacancy?

Makes no sense.
I just showed you 2011 with higher supplies, and higher vacancy.
Supplies and vacancy was going down hand in hand between 2011 and 2016.


Stick with what vacancy we talking "Census vacancy", or typical long term vacancy, that can be utilized for Sale/Rent.

I don't think we are going to agree on this particular point, because to be honest I don't really understand your logic on this, and it seems you don't understand mine.

So can we just agree to disagree on whether or not increased vacancy numbers increase or reduce available supply of stock for sale or rent?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I don't think we are going to agree on this particular point, because to be honest I don't really understand your logic on this, and it seems you don't understand mine.

So can we just agree to disagree on whether or not increased vacancy numbers increase or reduce available supply of stock for sale or rent?

My logic is simple. "Census Vacancy" of 250.000, is not a long term vacancy that can be used as a supply. Using those numbers as to say that Ireland has that many empty homes to support no shortage, is absolutely rubbish. Reasons discussed previously.

High vacancy normally increase available supplies. Low vacancy normally decrease availability of supplies. Not other way around, look at the history, look at other parts of the world. But compare apples with apples.

As well I correct you where you was wrong based on the historical facts for all three points. 1) Total Irish property stocks 2) Vacancy rates vs Supply. 3) Historical vacancy rates

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

My logic is simple. "Census Vacancy" of 250.000, is not a long term vacancy that can be used as a supply. Using those numbers as to say that Ireland has that many empty homes to support no shortage, is absolutely rubbish. Reasons discussed previously.

High vacancy normally increase available supplies. Low vacancy normally decrease availability of supplies. Not other way around, look at the history, look at other parts of the world. But compare apples with apples.

I've have never claimed that 250,000 vacant properties were available for sale or rent at the time of the 2016 census.

I have claimed that according to the census 10,350 properties were vacant and available for rent at the time of the 2016 census.

I have also claimed that according to Daft.ie at about the same time there were only approx 3000 properties available for rent, the lowest on record.

So in April/May 2016 Daft is telling us we have a current rental supply crisis and the CSO is telling us there is an abundance of current rental supply.

This begs the obvious question how do we account for the difference in the two findings?

If you find understanding vacancies so simple, can you enlighten us?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I've have never claimed that 250,000 vacant properties were available for sale or rent at the time of the 2016 census.

I have claimed that according to the census 10,350 properties were vacant and available for rent at the time of the 2016 census.

I have also claimed that according to Daft.ie at about the same time there were only approx 3000 properties available for rent, the lowest on record.

So in April/May 2016 Daft is telling us we have a current rental supply crisis and the CSO is telling us there is an abundance of current rental supply.

This begs the obvious question how do we account for the difference in the two findings?

If you find understanding vacancies so simple, can you enlighten us?

You are using those stats of 250.000, when discussing empty homes for sale/rent or housing shortage. Again most of them are probably well in use.
As it makes no sense to discuss shortage, to bringing up all these hundreds of of thousands properties that are well in use by someone.

Is not simple at all to understand vacancies, and there is no right instruments so far. I believe when we speak in terms of vacancy that could potentially be brought up in to the marked, should be defined the ones, that are long term vacant (6month or longer).
As well there is big difference between not sold new builds, and some country side old property in very bad condition. One will highly likely be inhabited in few years, thus a real supply, another likely will never become someone's home, thus no use as a supply.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

You are using those stats of 250.000, when discussing empty homes for sale/rent or housing shortage. Again most of them are probably well in use.
As it makes no sense to discuss shortage, to bringing up all these hundreds of of thousands properties that are well in use by someone.

Is not simple at all to understand vacancies, and there is no right instruments so far. I believe when we speak in terms of vacancy that could potentially be brought up in to the marked, should be defined the ones, that are long term vacant (6month or longer).
As well there is big difference between not sold new builds, and some country side old property in very bad condition. One will highly likely be inhabited in few years, thus a real supply, another likely will never become someone's home, thus no use as a supply.

Ok, if we can't agree to disagree on what I'm claiming to be available or not, can we agree that I am thick and do not understand this, everything I've have claimed to have understood thus far is patently false, and that you are smart and have much better grasp of it?

So now I am asking you to help me understand why the CSO is telling us that there is an abundance of available rental supply whilst at the same time daft are telling us that rental ad listings are at record lows?

I'm not seeking the holy grail of a definitive answer you could stand over at a tribunal, I'm just looking for your informed opinion on this point?

24 April 2016 CSO say there are approx 10,000 properties vacant because they are rentals between tenants.
Early May 2016 Daft say there are approx 3000 rentals available, record lows

How would you attempt to explain this difference?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, if we can't agree to disagree on what I'm claiming to be available or not, can we agree that I am thick and do not understand this, everything I've have claimed to have understood thus far is patently false, and that you are smart and have much better grasp of it?

So now I am asking you to help me understand why the CSO is telling us that there is an abundance of available rental supply whilst at the same time daft are telling us that rental ad listings are at record lows?

I'm not seeking the holy grail of a definitive answer you could stand over at a tribunal, I'm just looking for your informed opinion on this point?

24 April 2016 CSO say there are approx 10,000 properties vacant because they are rentals between tenants.
Early May 2016 Daft say there are approx 3000 rentals available, record lows

How would you attempt to explain this difference?

Yes, there is big difference. One is just Daft rental, Census vacancy.

Census can include not just Daft, but as well many other properties, like AirBNB, corporate rentals, property can be under renovation, or simply left empty for various reasons. and many other reasons, why they are not on daft.
Even could be a case like my scenario, as for many contractors. As contractor I need property on client side (for 6-12months), but I'm staying only from Mon-Thu. I don't stay around, definitely neighbors don't know me, hardly ever see.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, there is big difference. One is just Daft rental, Census vacancy.

Census can include not just Daft, but as well many other properties, like AirBNB, corporate rentals, property can be under renovation, or simply left empty for various reasons. and many other reasons, why they are not on daft.
Even could be a case like my scenario, as for many contractors. As contractor I need property on client side (for 6-12months), but I'm staying only from Mon-Thu. I don't stay around, definitely neighbors don't know me, hardly ever see.

Thank you for answering the question.

If it was an STL - i,e airbnb/corporate etc - property then it represents a property the govt can target for fresh supply, assuming it does not have planning permission.
If it was a property under renovation, it should be listed in the 'Renovation' category.
Or if it was simply left empty for one of various other reasons then it is not correctly listed in the Reasons for Vacancy - Rental category.

My point on this is that AIRO's analysis of the census vacancies says that the Dublin vacancies are all perfectly normal, everything you'd expect in a functioning property market:

A high proportion of properties within the Dublin local authorities are vacant as a result of being For Sale or For Rent. In Dublin City this is particularly high with 15% of all vacant properties classed as being For Rent. As such almost one quarter of all ‘recently vacant’ properties within Dublin City (2,758 of 11,238) were actively on the housing market– either For Sale or For Rent on census night.

Clearly, as you've pointed out yourself, this is not true. These properties are not actively on the housing market.

If they are not actively on the housing market then AIROs claim that the Dublin vacancy rate is perfectly normal, nothing to see here, can be questioned.

My point remains on the census that there is enough of a red flag being raised with these discrepancies, that in the midst of a housing crisis we should be trying to find satisfactory explanations for them.

I thank you for trying, but I am yet to hear any satisfactory explanations for the fact that the census data is suggesting that the housing shortage is not as acute as others are claiming.

Marius34

Deleted