PropQueries wrote: » Are they from the 2016 Census though?
schmittel wrote: » Surely the census report is either accurate or it is not? i.e if you don't have any faith in one particular set of data - vacant properties - why would you have any faith in the rest of the data? And it is the census data telling us that we have a chronic housing shortage? So are those assumptions shaky too?
awec wrote: » Are we back talking about this census thing again? Hasn’t that been shown to be nonsense time and time again on this thread? One of the Dublin councils did an inspection of these so called vacant properties and found the majority of them were in fact occupied. I think the reason we stopped hearing about these vacant units was that it turned out using the census to try figure out vacancy was so wildly inaccurate that the data was useless. Gathering accurate vacancy information is very difficult, evidenced by the fact that nobody has managed to figure out how to do it yet.
schmittel wrote: » But is it just the vacant property figures that are nonsense or the entire census? Stands to reason that the whole thing is bogus and not worth quoting in any context.
PropQueries wrote: » Gathering accurate data is what the Census actually does. The information you're referring to is actually "drive-by" data on a couple of estates. I'd go by the Census figures as if they were debunked, the figures would have been changed afterwards or at the very least a disclaimer added. Census figures are very important and any information that debunks them would be noted.
awec wrote: » There is nothing to be debunked. The census is not designed for evaluating the number of vacant properties in Ireland. It is designed to measure population as accurately as possible. They are two very different things.
PropQueries wrote: » Here;s the link to read for yourself. They take their recording of vacant homes very seriously: https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2016reports/census2016vacanthousingstatisticsfaqs/#:~:text=CSO%20has%20produced%20more%20results,were%20still%20vacant%20in%202016.
awec wrote: » I am aware of the link, it’s been discussed about 20 times on this forum already. Every time someone thinks they’ve uncovered some grand conspiracy between estate agents and the media and some other dark forces, the manufacturers of tin foil hats love it when this topic comes up. Someone not answering the door when the census person calls does not indicate vacancy. It’s a incredibly flaky methodology. Again, one of the Dublin councils literally checked this and found the majority occupied. We have a housing list that’s a decade long, if you think the councils aren’t looking into these supposed empty gaffs then you’re nuts.
PropQueries wrote: » No they didn't lol. I saw the interview with the previous housing minister and he actually said it was a drive-by of certain areas. If the Census figures are wrong, they would have been changed or at least a note added that there is some reason why they may be wrong and the so-called vested interests e.g estate agents, developers etc., would have demanded such an addition. They haven't been changed so they must have being correct at that time. When you think about it, a landlord couldn't rent their property for free in 2011 and suddenly, in 2016, there was a rental shortage in Dublin. The census figures clearly state there was a population increase in Ireland of 172,000 between 2011 and 2016. Of that, over 100,000 was in the over 65's which leaves an increase of 70,000 people between 0 and 64. With 245,000 vacant properties including holiday homes, how could there possibly be a shortage?
Hubertj wrote: » I would like to understand what criteria was used to determine if a unit is ‘vacant’. To suggest that some data within the census can’t be inaccurate is just ridiculous. Unless it suits the narrative that some claim there isn’t a shortage of property. But not even the losers on the left are claiming that.
myshirt wrote: » I think you are trying to undermine the integrity of the census, and I'm not having it. This isn't a survey for a new bingo night for the community hall. It's our census. It costs a shedload. It's a strong and robust process. Of course the information should be read in the right context, but by no means is it a bunch of enumerators not bothering their arse to do the job right. It's done right I know you didn't raise it directly but to the poster challenging the other poster with his two cocks, whether there is or isn't evidence of illegal cock fights included in the report is a side bar issue.
schmittel wrote: » There are two sides to every narrative, I guess. The housing shortage crisis is nonsense, look at the census And The housing shortage is drastic, the census is nonsense.
Hubertj wrote: » I think the link provided by Marius above gives insight into how properties were counted vacant. being renovated? So a house being renovated which is uninhabitable is counted as being vacant? For sale means vacant? Pure genius
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.
Marius34 wrote: » the issue that census does not provide information on Permanent vacancy, so it's not a source for housing shortage details. They are planning to improve information about vacancy for 2021, hopefully they will add details on actual Permanent vacancy, although I don't expect magic, as it's abit of the complex question, and they can not work with other institutions to verify this.
schmittel wrote: » Marius’ link does indeed give an insight. Of particular interest is the long term vacancies as this represents a potential oversupply. I.e the same property was vacant in 2011 and 2016. As Marius quotes by relative numbers these are lowest in Dublin as you might expect. But of more interest are the reasons thAt they were vacant: So are these houses languishing on the rental market with no takers for 5 years or is it just a coincidence that a high number of properties in Dublin just happened to be between tenants on consecutive census nights 5 years apart? Or is there an altogether more probable explanation?
schmittel wrote: » Long term vacancy I.e 5 years + is very relevant in the context of a housing shortage.
Hubertj wrote: » 2 data points 5 years apart is less than useless. If this was updated quarterly then you have something to go on.
Marius34 wrote: » It is. But from census we only know, that on 2011 census night it was registered as vacant (for that specific night only, not in general), same for 2016. Thus, it doesn't really tell if it's really permanently vacant.
schmittel wrote: » You'd wonder why we bother with a census at all, if it is less than useless.
Hubertj wrote: » They are totally different - objective of the census is to gather population information, hence the number of questions to compile a detailed data set. There are other sources of data for property. Or why didn’t the census cross reference vacant properties with RTB (or is it PRTB?) registrations?
schmittel wrote: » Probably because they have confidence in the methodology they have developed to try and evaluate every household in the country and didn’t expect people to say “sure the CSO doesn’t know its arse from its elbow, the census figures can’t be trusted, Fingal county council knocked on 76 doors and totally debunked it.”
Hubertj wrote: » I didn’t say the census can’t be trusted. I said that 2 data points 5 years apart are useless in terms of property.
Hubertj wrote: » The explanation of what they determined vacant clearly sets out is extremely limited effectiveness in providing a reliable analysis of that data. Should a property that is being renovated be classified as vacant? Should a property for sale be vacant? What if people are living in it while it’s for sale?
