nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Vacant Properties in Ireland

Timing belt

PropQueries wrote: »

I believe I normally post both when discussing it and ask people to pick whichever figure they wish.

Yes, they are 4 years apart. But, still, 90,000 is, in my opinion, a big deal. To put the figure into perspective, England with 10 times our population had only 216,000 vacant homes in 2018.

And yes, I would be interested in large numbers. It matters given how small our country and our economy is. Same with our public debt. Pre-covid, it was the third highest in the world on a per capita basis. Only the USA and Japan were ahead of us. And, remember, the USA and Japanese debt is in their own currency so they can literally print their debt away.

Technically we can too, with ECB approval. Our debt is in euro, which, given the amount of control we have over it, our debt might as well be in dollars, sterling or yen.

Is there any breakdown by location/county for vacant properties?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Write to the cso and get them to explain.

Government are right to concentrate on building more rather than investigate

The CSO have already given their explanation. The short version is "We know what we're doing, we stand over our findings."

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

What a drama to a simple question.

Simple question:

Marius34 wrote: »

And how GeoDirectory tells that there are no housing stock shortage in Dublin Co.?

Simple answer

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

That's a fair point, and part of my gripe is that if that is the case in the middle of a housing crisis I'd like the govt to investigate and inform us what that sound explanation is.

But what they're saying is "Nothing to see here, we need to talk about building more."

Write to the cso and get them to explain.

Government are right to concentrate on building more rather than investigate

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

It seems like I avoid your question, and now it seems like I'm possibly returning to census?!

Spinning something maybe, playing words, or misrepresenting facts? Or any of these other crimes you like to suggest?

Or maybe I was just slowly trying to spell out to you exactly how I arrived at my conclusions from reading GeoDirectory, step by step.

I was trying to spell it out so you don't get lost. Earlier in the thread I have already explained it but it seems to have gone completely over your head.

But you're so afraid that I am trying to trip you up or catch you out, you are not willing to listen!

Sorry, I might be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

What a drama to a question.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

No doubt there will be a good sound explanation as to why the figures appear higher but it doesn’t tally with what you see out and about.

That's a fair point, and part of my gripe is that if that is the case in the middle of a housing crisis I'd like the govt to investigate and inform us what that sound explanation is.

But what they're saying is "Nothing to see here, we need to talk about building more."

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Fair enough, I have no idea, I haven't spent much time in Dublin, but I'll agree it seems unlikely.

I guess it seems unlikely, not because I've had the opportunity of peering in windows or whatever, but because of the relentless bad news stories about the housing situation in Dublin.

No doubt there will be a good sound explanation as to why the figures appear higher but it doesn’t tally with what you see out and about.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

No I am not saying that I don't believe your figures what I am saying is forget about the census the GeoDirectory etc and ask your self does one in every 17 properties in Dublin seem a like the vacancy rate that you see when out and about in Dublin.

Fair enough, I have no idea, I haven't spent much time in Dublin, but I'll agree it seems unlikely.

I guess it seems unlikely, not because I've had the opportunity of peering in windows or whatever, but because of the relentless bad news stories about the housing situation in Dublin.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Because it seems like you avoid my question, and don't mention GeoDirectory, possibly returning to Census.
Sorry, I might be wrong, I'm getting lost, with the last few messages on what you trying to say..

It seems like I avoid your question, and now it seems like I'm possibly returning to census?!

Spinning something maybe, playing words, or misrepresenting facts? Or any of these other crimes you like to suggest?

Or maybe I was just slowly trying to spell out to you exactly how I arrived at my conclusions from reading GeoDirectory, step by step.

I was trying to spell it out so you don't get lost. Earlier in the thread I have already explained it but it seems to have gone completely over your head.

But you're so afraid that I am trying to trip you up or catch you out, you are not willing to listen!

Sorry, I might be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Ok, so you're saying you don't believe my figure of 6%, that's fair enough!

No I am not saying that I don't believe your figures what I am saying is forget about the census the GeoDirectory etc and ask your self does one in every 17 properties in Dublin seem a like the vacancy rate that you see when out and about in Dublin.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Eh, when did I move back to my Census?!

Because it seems like you avoid my question, and don't mention GeoDirectory, possibly returning to Census.
Sorry, I might be wrong, I'm getting lost, with the last few messages on what you trying to say..

TheW1zard

What are they doing with all the empty industrial schools? Can they not build or sell them incase theres a huge case against the state?
I was watching the programme on rte a few weeks back and there are a lot sitting dorment now

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

If it was 10% that would be one in ten houses vacant. I only have to walk around to see that this is not the case.

6% is one in every 17 houses in Dublin yet again I don't see it when I walk down the road.

1.3% which is one in every 76 properties would seem more reasonable.

Ok, so you're saying you don't believe my figure of 6%, that's fair enough!

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

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.

If it was 10% that would be one in ten houses vacant. I only have to walk around to see that this is not the case.

6% is one in every 17 houses in Dublin yet again I don't see it when I walk down the road.

1.3% which is one in every 76 properties would seem more reasonable.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

You keep telling that GeoDirectory tells the same, but when I ask, you keep moving to your Census.

Eh, when did I move back to my Census?!

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Your point being?

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.

You keep telling that GeoDirectory tells the same, but when I ask, you keep moving to your Census.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

...

Your point being?

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.

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.

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

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

...

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.

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: »

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: »

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.

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.

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..

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?

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)

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: »

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?

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.