Vacant Properties in Ireland

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

None of them said that there are sufficient existing habitable properties in Dublin. It was only you stating this.

I agree that they didn't (or at least I have never read it) explicitly say overall current number of existing habitable properties in Dublin is sufficient for the overall current existing population of Dublin - I am interpreting the figures and comments they make to draw that conclusion.

You are presumably interpreting them to draw the opposite conclusion.

Or have any of them explicitly said that the overall stock is too low? If they have I think I have missed it, could you share it?

By that I don't mean them saying affordable houses too low, social housing too low, disabled housing too low, or that existing stock will not be enough at some point in the future, or some other niche or caveat.

Edit to add - In this post we specifically mention Dublin, but obviously this holds true for nationwide as well. The interesting thing for me about all this is months ago, when I started posting about the inefficient allocation of existing housing stock part of my theory was that some people who did not need to be in Dublin should be incentivised to move out, in order to improve the efficiency of allocation - i.e free up space.

Having gone down the rabbit hole of reading in detail all the stuff about vacant properties I was surprised to find that there are sufficient numbers of existing properties in Dublin - i.e the space is already there.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

I agree that they didn't (or at least I have never read it) explicitly say overall current number of existing habitable properties in Dublin is sufficient for the overall current existing population of Dublin - I am interpreting the figures and comments they make to draw that conclusion.

You are presumably interpreting them to draw the opposite conclusion.

Or have any of them explicitly said that the overall stock is too low? If they have I think I have missed it, could you share it?

By that I don't mean them saying affordable houses too low, social housing too low, disabled housing too low, or that existing stock will not be enough at some point in the future, or some other niche or caveat.

No, I haven't seen information around existing habitable properties in those reports, apart from you telling it.
But there are reports about housing shortage, which in itself is part of overall housing stocks. But you probably know your right interpretation.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

No, I haven't seen information around existing habitable properties in those reports, apart from you telling it.
But there are reports about housing shortage, which in itself is part of overall housing stocks. But you probably know your right interpretation.

Sounds a lot like you're saying you can see nothing in the data sources I listed that says there is a shortage of housing stock.

And thus we are left to interpret the data they provide us with, one way or another.

I have interpreted data to say there is sufficient total housing stock and explained why with links.

Yet you are unable to show me how you interpret that data is saying the opposite.

Instead you say "But I've linked to different reports that say something else" - sure they say something else, but they don't actually contradict my interpretation of the data. Actually they confirm part of my conclusion:

There is a current shortage of available supply of affordable housing.

This is no shortage of total housing stock.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Sounds a lot like you're saying you can see nothing in the data sources I listed that says there is a shortage of housing stock.

And thus we are left to interpret the data they provide us with, one way or another.

I have interpreted data to say there is sufficient total housing stock and explained why with links.

Yet you are unable to show me how you interpret that data is saying the opposite.

Instead you say "But I've linked to different reports that say something else" - sure they say something else, but they don't actually contradict my interpretation of the data. Actually they confirm part of my conclusion:

There is a current shortage of available supply of affordable housing.

This is no shortage of total housing stock.

I have explained many times about the data, than Census is not suitable to identify property shortage (simply because it's not about long term vacancy, temporal vacancy means nothing to shortage), the only thing it can be good to compare it's trends. But you will reject anything that it's not in your interest, as you have your own right interpretation. Thus I think it's time to stop with interpretation game, for bits and pieces, and see what various reports/article say.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I have explained many times about the data, than Census is not suitable to identify property shortage (simply because it's not about long term vacancy, temporal vacancy means nothing to shortage), the only thing it can be good to compare it's trends. But you will reject anything that it's not in your interest, as you have your own right interpretation. Thus I think it's time to stop with interpretation game, for bits and pieces, and see what various reports/article say.

Yes, I've heard you on the Census. And ignoring the census, GeoDirectory points to exactly the same conclusion.

I shall continue to interpret this data, and any other data we get - that's kind of the point of publishing the data.

I shall discuss it with whoever wishes to do so civilly. That's kind of the point of boards.

If that's not you, no problem, totally understand.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Yes, I've heard you on the Census. And ignoring the census, GeoDirectory points to exactly the same conclusion.

I shall continue to interpret this data, and any other data we get - that's kind of the point of publishing the data.

I shall discuss it with whoever wishes to do so civilly. That's kind of the point of boards.

If that's not you, no problem, totally understand.

And how GeoDirectory tells that there are no housing stock shortage in Dublin Co.?
What long term vacancy would you expect to mean shortage, and what oversupply?

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

And how GeoDirectory tells that there are no housing stock shortage in Dublin Co.?
What long term vacancy would you expect to mean shortage, and what oversupply?

Have we not been down this road before? Can we try a different approach?

Why don't you tell me what you see in GeoDirectory data that tells you there is a housing shortage and I will try and contradict you? Maybe I won't be able to, and I will then see it your way.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Have we not been down this road before? Can we try a different approach?

Why don't you tell me what you see in GeoDirectory data that tells you there is a housing shortage and I will try and contradict you? Maybe I won't be able to, and I will then see it your way.

FFS what is your point?

You keep saying there is plenty of housing stock but yet everyone agrees there is a housing crisis. Why, what can be done about it tell us and for gods sake stop with your CSO/GeoDirectory we have heard your points on this but are none the wiser to what you are actually trying to say!!!

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

FFS what is your point?

You keep saying there is plenty of housing stock but yet everyone agrees there is a housing crisis. Why, what can be done about it tell us and for gods sake stop with your CSO/GeoDirectory we have heard your points on this but are none the wiser to what you are actually trying to say!!!

I am trying to say there is a housing crisis and a chronic lack of affordable housing that is being caused by private sector property owners choosing to keep properties vacant as a direct result of a range of government actions and inactions.

Is that clear enough for you?

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

I am trying to say there is a housing crisis and a chronic lack of affordable housing that is being caused by private sector property owners choosing to keep properties vacant as a direct result of a range of government actions and inactions.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes thank you.

I may not agree with you that this is cause of the lack of affordable housing but I will agree that if these properties are in the affordable bracket that it will add to problem.

The reason I say affordable bracket is because if the cost of these properties are not affordable (or are overpriced) then they will not have an impact on the housing crisis as even if they were on the market they would be out of reach for the majority of people.

If they are overpriced then It might also explain why they are not on the market because if the owner has negative equity in them he might be reluctant to sell at current market prices and be holding out for the price to increase before releasing them on the market.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Yes thank you.

I may not agree with you that this is cause of the lack of affordable housing but I will agree that if these properties are in the affordable bracket that it will add to problem.

The reason I say affordable bracket is because if the cost of these properties are not affordable (or are overpriced) then they will not have an impact on the housing crisis as even if they were on the market they would be out of reach for the majority of people.

If they are overpriced then It might also explain why they are not on the market because if the owner has negative equity in them he might be reluctant to sell at current market prices and be holding out for the price to increase before releasing them on the market.

But the consequence of this restricted supply is causing prices to rise. Both in rental and sales markets.

If government tried to bring these properties back into circulation prices would drop across the board because of increased supply. So a property that is currently 600k might drop to 540k and in the affordable sector a property that is 300k might drop to 270k increasing affordability.

But instead the govt persists with policies that have the opposite effect. Eg add another 10k to Help to Buy.

And then what happened? Eligible properties for HTB went up 10k overnight. The latest wheeze being floated is that the govt take some equity stake in properties. If this is introduced do you really think that will make properties more affordable or do you think the price will just increase in sync with whatever extra govt support is on the table?

The same is true of rents. RPZ rent controls and ever stricter PRTB laws are simply removing properties from the market, either to STL market or to lie vacant. If rent controls were scrapped and govt incentivised private landlords, a proportion of these properties would be on the rental market, increasing supply, causing prices to fall, and this in turn would put downward pressure on sales prices.

And I'm sorry that you are exasperated by me banging on about data and stats, but the problem is every time I have tried to start a discussion about the vacancy issue some poster pipes up to say the CSO data has been proven to be false or some other nonsense and then you get dragged into an argument about vacancy numbers, with people telling you ad nauseam "There are no vacancies. You're wrong, we're in the middle of a housing crisis" - Em, I never said we were not in the middle of housing crisis, that's the whole fecking point!

It's like the WFH home debate - impossible to have a discussion about what impact, if any, an increasing trend for WFH might have because there are a group of posters who will instantly bombard any such debate with posts saying "Don't be ridiculous, the idea of Dublin becoming a ghost town, is ridiculous" - Em, I never said everybody would leave, just a small number who will potentially have an outsized impact, that's the whole fecking point!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

But the consequence of this restricted supply is causing prices to rise. Both in rental and sales markets.

If government tried to bring these properties back into circulation prices would drop across the board because of increased supply. So a property that is currently 600k might drop to 540k and in the affordable sector a property that is 300k might drop to 270k increasing affordability.

But instead the govt persists with policies that have the opposite effect. Eg add another 10k to Help to Buy.

And then what happened? Eligible properties for HTB went up 10k overnight. The latest wheeze being floated is that the govt take some equity stake in properties. If this is introduced do you really think that will make properties more affordable or do you think the price will just increase in sync with whatever extra govt support is on the table?

The same is true of rents. RPZ rent controls and ever stricter PRTB laws are simply removing properties from the market, either to STL market or to lie vacant. If rent controls were scrapped and govt incentivised private landlords, a proportion of these properties would be on the rental market, increasing supply, causing prices to fall, and this in turn would put downward pressure on sales prices.

And I'm sorry that you are exasperated by me banging on about data and stats, but the problem is every time I have tried to start a discussion about the vacancy issue some poster pipes up to say the CSO data has been proven to be false or some other nonsense and then you get dragged into an argument about vacancy numbers, with people telling you ad nauseam "There are no vacancies. You're wrong we're in the middle of a housing crisis" - Em, I never said we were not in the middle of housing crisis, that's the whole fecking point!

It's like the WFH home debate - impossible to have a discussion about what impact, if any, an increasing trend for WFH might have because there are a group of posters who will instantly bombard any such debate with posts saying "Don't be ridiculous, the idea of Dublin becoming a ghost town, is ridiculous" - Em, I never said everybody would leave, just a small number who will potentially have an outsized impact, that's the whole fecking point!

I will agree with you that every time the government step in to try and make houses more affordable for first time buyers there actions only lead to a price increase that then ripples through the housing market. I like to think of it as a boat which will be the same distance above the water regardless of how much water is added.

You are also correct that the only solution is in an increase in supply but this does not necessary have to come from vacant properties. Even if a tax was introduced to incentivise owners to the sell there would probably be so many valid exceptions that it would not be workable and the time and resource may be better used building new stock.

With regards rent controls this has always lead to a decrease in supply of rental properties as investors are afraid of getting stuck with the investment for a long time. But unfortunately the government did not have much of an option but to introduce these controls due to the housing crisis as without them rents would have become unaffordable.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Have we not been down this road before? Can we try a different approach?

Why don't you tell me what you see in GeoDirectory data that tells you there is a housing shortage and I will try and contradict you? Maybe I won't be able to, and I will then see it your way.

Not really, you haven't told at all, how this 1.3% vacancy in Dublin Co. still tells we have high housing stocks?
You was mainly looking at some differences.

We agree that there are supply shortage.

Currently Dublin Co. already are building the amount of all vacant homes in a single year. Was it sufficient? no?
How this will solve if we add couple of thousand vacant homes, and it's realistically impossible to go to 0% vacancy rate.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Not really, you haven't told at all, how this 1.3% vacancy in Dublin Co. still tells we have high housing stocks?
You was mainly looking at some differences.

We agree that there are supply shortage.

Currently Dublin Co. already are building the amount of all vacant homes in a single year. Was it sufficient? no?
How this will solve if we add couple of thousand vacant homes, and it's realistically impossible to go to 0% vacancy rate.

Yes agreed.

I think the both the sales and rental market have been characterised by exceptionally tight supply since about 2015 - particularly the rental market, supply has been at record lows.

Can we agree on that for starters?

Timing belt

Marius34 wrote: »

Not really, you haven't told at all, how this 1.3% vacancy in Dublin Co. still tells we have high housing stocks?
You was mainly looking at some differences.

We agree that there are supply shortage.

Currently Dublin Co. already are building the amount of all vacant homes in a single year. Was it sufficient? no?
How this will solve if we add couple of thousand vacant homes, and it's realistically impossible to go to 0% vacancy rate.

Even if you look at New York which is known to have lotteries for apartments they have a vacancy rate of 3%+
source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYRVAC

or San-Francisco which also has a chronic shortage where companies were looking to build house just to retain employees has a vacancy rate of 3%+
source: https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/

The figures for Dublin look quite low by comparison. Yes there might be a lot of properties but in the big scheme it is probably a drop in the ocean and the only answer is to build new stock.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Yes agreed.

I think the both the sales and rental market have been characterised by exceptionally tight supply since about 2015 - particularly the rental market, supply has been at record lows.

Can we agree on that for starters?

Yes, since around that time.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

I will agree with you that every time the government step in to try and make houses more affordable for first time buyers there actions only lead to a price increase that then ripples through the housing market. I like to think of it as a boat which will be the same distance above the water regardless of how much water is added.

You are also correct that the only solution is in an increase in supply but this does not necessary have to come from vacant properties. Even if a tax was introduced to incentivise owners to the sell there would probably be so many valid exceptions that it would not be workable and the time and resource may be better used building new stock.

it doesn't necessarily have to be a tax incentive, it could be removing an existing incentive - eg crack down on airbnb and take that option of the table as a way of generating income from occasional lettings.

Timing belt wrote: »

With regards rent controls this has always lead to a decrease in supply of rental properties as investors are afraid of getting stuck with the investment for a long time. But unfortunately the government did not have much of an option but to introduce these controls due to the housing crisis as without them rents would have become unaffordable.

I think the vacancy problem was big pre the intorduction of RPZs, and now it has just exacerbated. That is why I think you are seeing increasing vacancy numbers in RPZ since 2017 as posted earlier.

There is no one magic solution. My point is the government needs to completely change focus and develop a suite of measures designed to maximise the efficient use of existing stock, supporting the supply side - that is from vacancies, encouraging downsizers, encourage relocation, speeding up bank disputes and arrears, negative equity issues etc etc.

There is a whole host of options available to them. And most of them are far more cost efficient than subsidising the demand side.

The fact they are barely recognising the vacancies are a problem and keep pumping measures into demand side suggest any sort of widescale rethink is not on the horizon anytime soon.

The budget will be very telling.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, since around that time.

Great! We've spent so long arguing about what we disagree about, I'm trying to focus on what agree on!

From the National Vacant Housing Reuse Strategy:

It should be noted that a vacancy rate of between 2.5% and 6% is considered normal in a properly functioning housing market. This vacancy rate allows for dwellings under renovation, in between tenancies (in both public and private housing stock) and those dwellings left vacant while being sold.

And would you agree with this statement?

i.e there has to be some level of vacancies for the market to function properly and 2.5% - 6% seems to be a reasonable range?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Great! We've spent so long arguing about what we disagree about, I'm trying to focus on what agree on!

From the National Vacant Housing Reuse Strategy:



And would you agree with this statement?

i.e there has to be some level of vacancies for the market to function properly and 2.5% - 6% seems to be a reasonable range?

I don't know, other reports mentioned that it should be 6%.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I don't know, other reports mentioned that it should be 6%.

From what I have read 6% is oft quoted as an optimum figure, but surely it fluctuates over time, and in markets characterised by tight supply it would make sense that it is lower?

Like say New York or San Francisco at 3% as per TimingBelts link above?

But fair enough, even if you don't agree that 2.5% - 6% is a reasonable range, would you agree that the Dept of Housing think this is a reasonable range? (given that they published it in the document I referenced)

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

From what I have read 6% is oft quoted as an optimum figure, but surely it fluctuates over time, and in markets characterised by tight supply it would make sense that it is lower?

Like say New York or San Francisco at 3% as per TimingBelts link above?

But fair enough, even if you don't agree that 2.5% - 6% is a reasonable range, would you agree that the Dept of Housing think this is a reasonable range? (given that they published it in the document I referenced)

Dublin's vacancy rate is below 3% or are you saying it is higher?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

From what I have read 6% is oft quoted as an optimum figure, but surely it fluctuates over time, and in markets characterised by tight supply it would make sense that it is lower?

Like say New York or San Francisco at 3% as per TimingBelts link above?

But fair enough, even if you don't agree that 2.5% - 6% is a reasonable range, would you agree that the Dept of Housing think this is a reasonable range? (given that they published it in the document I referenced)

Come on.. not sure about that at all.
I asked a simple question about your confidence that GeoDirectory shows that Dublin has sufficient housing stock. And you spinning something..

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Come on.. not sure about that at all.
I asked a simple question about your confidence that GeoDirectory shows that Dublin has sufficient housing stock. And you spinning something..

Forget about it.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Dublin's vacancy rate is below 3% or are you saying it is higher?

Will you do me a favour and humour me (i know you hate the GeoDirectory chat!) and answer the questions I asked Marius?

In doing so I will try and show you how I arrived at the conclusion that this is wrong - "The figures for Dublin look quite low by comparison. Yes there might be a lot of properties but in the big scheme it is probably a drop in the ocean and the only answer is to build new stock."

Or alternatively in doing so, you maybe able to show me what I am missing and how I am getting it so wrong?

Clearly Marius is afraid of being proven wrong, whereas I am not.

Do you think the market has been characterised by tight supply since 2015?

And do you agree with the following statement from the National Vacant Housing Reuse Strategy:

It should be noted that a vacancy rate of between 2.5% and 6% is considered normal in a properly functioning housing market. This vacancy rate allows for dwellings under renovation, in between tenancies (in both public and private housing stock) and those dwellings left vacant while being sold.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Will you do me a favour and humour me (i know you hate the GeoDirectory chat!) and answer the questions I asked Marius?

In doing so I will try and show you how I arrived at the conclusion that this is wrong - "The figures for Dublin look quite low by comparison. Yes there might be a lot of properties but in the big scheme it is probably a drop in the ocean and the only answer is to build new stock."

Or alternatively in doing so, you maybe able to show me what I am missing and how I am getting it so wrong?

Clearly Marius is afraid of being proven wrong, whereas I am not.

Do you think the market has been characterised by tight supply since 2015?

And do you agree with the following statement from the National Vacant Housing Reuse Strategy:

Cut to the chase if you think it is wrong then what % do you think it is?

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Cut to the chase if you think it is wrong then what % do you think it is?

Double what you are claiming it is. More like 6%.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Double what you are claiming it is. More like 6%.

OK so say 6% that doesn't change my opinion that there is an inadequate housing stock in Dublin and that new stock needs to be built.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Yes, I've heard you on the Census. And ignoring the census, GeoDirectory points to exactly the same conclusion.

...

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

OK so say 6% that doesn't change my opinion that there is an inadequate housing stock in Dublin and that new stock needs to be built.

Fair enough, of course everyone entitled to different opinions.

I just think it is bit odd, given that you held that opinion based on thinking the vacancies were less than 3%, and considering there might actually be double the number of vacant properties you hold exactly the same opinion.

tommyombomb

I always wonder are some of a lot of there vacant properties being rented throught cash. Know when i rented in dublin for a while if was cash every month.