Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What Happened to The Vacant Properties Counted in the Census?

2

Comments

  • #52
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    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.


  • #53
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    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.

    Long term vacancy I.e 5 years + is very relevant in the context of a housing shortage.


  • #54
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    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?

    2 data points 5 years apart is less than useless. If this was updated quarterly then you have something to go on.


  • #55
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    Long term vacancy I.e 5 years + is very relevant in the context of a housing shortage.

    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.


  • #56
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    2 data points 5 years apart is less than useless. If this was updated quarterly then you have something to go on.

    You'd wonder why we bother with a census at all, if it is less than useless.


  • #57
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    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.

    Nor does an occupied property tell us if it is really permanently occupied, but we can use our common sense to infer that.


  • #58
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    You'd wonder why we bother with a census at all, if it is less than useless.


    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?


  • #59
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    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?

    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.”


  • #60
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    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.”

    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.
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    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.

    It was a generalisation on a view expressed here. Whilst you might not have explicitly said the census cannot be trusted, you're obviously not convinced by the data on vacant properties..
    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?

    Of course not, that's ridiculous. And that is not is what is being claimed by the census.

    Perhaps have another read of Marius' link to understand the explanation a little better.


  • #62
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    It was a generalisation on a view expressed here. Whilst you might not have explicitly said the census cannot be trusted, you're obviously not convinced by the data on vacant properties..



    Of course not, that's ridiculous. And that is not is what is being claimed by the census.

    Perhaps have another read of Marius' link to understand the explanation a little better.

    If you want to use 2 data points 5 years apart to come to a conclusion, please do. There looks to be plenty more real time and accurate data to build an opinion on.


  • #63
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Hubertj wrote: »
    If you want to use 2 data points 5 years apart to come to a conclusion, please do. There looks to be plenty more real time and accurate data to build an opinion on.

    The fact that they are 5 years apart is the whole point.

    If the same property is listed as vacant in 2011 census AND 2016 census then it is classified as long term vacant. Intuitively it makes perfect sense.

    What other these other data sources that are more real time and accurate?

    And I don't think I have strayed into the realms of conspiracy theories by using census data to come to a conclusion!


  • #64
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    The fact that they are 5 years apart is the whole point.

    If the same property is listed as vacant in 2011 census AND 2016 census then it is classified as long term vacant. Intuitively it makes perfect sense.

    What other these other data sources that are more real time and accurate?

    And I don't think I have strayed into the realms of conspiracy theories by using census data to come to a conclusion!

    It’s like saying I got drunk on the same dates in 2011 and 2016 then deciding I have a drink problem.
    My issue is with the data irrespective of what it relates to.


  • #65
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    Probably none of them has the right vacancy numbers, and everyone has different methodology.
    But yes better look why other reports are not good, and not Census one.
    I provided details about areas around me, why Census recorded 50% vacancy, in census thread:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058102792&page=2

    but you not interested why Census may result in wrong vacancy rates, but instead searching why some other reports may have wrong results.

    This debate started again in the main thread so picking it up here to try and keep mods happy. Rereading this thread reminds me of how incredibly mystifying I find this whole debate! Anyway here goes...
    Marius34 wrote: »
    I'm confident census report is not precise at all in the sense of "Empty" properties. I live in Balgrifin (Dublin 13) some areas are recorded 50% vacancy.
    Couple of main reasons:
    1) Parkside Phase 1: many properties was in development/completed, that had address on it already. But houses were not completed, or people have not made a permanent move yet. Those are registered as vacant.
    2) New Priory: an apartment buildings that due to fire issue was in no living conditions. It got almost complete rebuilt by now, and sells as new apartments. Those are registered as vacant.

    There are many other reasons. And definitely not all workers in census waste a time to find out if the property is really vacant.

    Re Parkside and New Priory - they are correctly identified as vacant according to the census methodology - "in the case of newly constructed dwellings, that meant that the roof, doors, windows or walls had to be completely built or installed"

    There seems to be no debate whether or not the buildings exist, just whether or not they are correctly classified as vacant. The census do have a vacant subcategory of "New Build"

    When posters like myself quote census vacancy rates it is to make the point that according to the CSO on census night there were approx 180,000 vacant habitable dwelllings, or 12.3% of the total housing stock. This is double the normal long term average which seems odd given tight supply.

    The point we are making is that in time these dwellings are available to be brought in to use with very little effort to house people.

    The examples of Parkside and New Priory do not undermine this argument rather they reinforce it.

    In the case of Parkside the properties have been brought into use by connecting the electricity or painting the front door or whatever, and in New Priory by being rebuilt.

    i,e they formed part of a stock of 180,000 houses that at that date needed to be counted available for future occupation.

    If they weren't classified as vacant how should they have been classified? Certainly not occupied.

    The likes of Fingal Co Co suggest there is more like 5400 vacant properties in the country which is ludicrous. That would mean that properties such as Parkside and New Griffin are not counted at all, which is far more misleading than any lazy enumerator rounding error.

    Again on this argument the census wins out for me!


  • #66
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    This debate started again in the main thread so picking it up here to try and keep mods happy. Rereading this thread reminds me of how incredibly mystifying I find this whole debate! Anyway here goes...



    Re Parkside and New Priory - they are correctly identified as vacant according to the census methodology - "in the case of newly constructed dwellings, that meant that the roof, doors, windows or walls had to be completely built or installed"

    There seems to be no debate whether or not the buildings exist, just whether or not they are correctly classified as vacant. The census do have a vacant subcategory of "New Build"

    When posters like myself quote census vacancy rates it is to make the point that according to the CSO on census night there were approx 180,000 vacant habitable dwelllings, or 12.3% of the total housing stock. This is double the normal long term average which seems odd given tight supply.

    The point we are making is that in time these dwellings are available to be brought in to use with very little effort to house people.

    The examples of Parkside and New Priory do not undermine this argument rather they reinforce it.

    In the case of Parkside the properties have been brought into use by connecting the electricity or painting the front door or whatever, and in New Priory by being rebuilt.

    i,e they formed part of a stock of 180,000 houses that at that date needed to be counted available for future occupation.

    If they weren't classified as vacant how should they have been classified? Certainly not occupied.

    The likes of Fingal Co Co suggest there is more like 5400 vacant properties in the country which is ludicrous. That would mean that properties such as Parkside and New Griffin are not counted at all, which is far more misleading than any lazy enumerator rounding error.

    Again on this argument the census wins out for me!

    So apartments in New Priory, that requires to be totally rebuild, how this is vacant as an available supply? nobody could live there.

    If I bought a new home, but haven't moved in yet. It's obviously will be available for future occupation (for myself), but how this is vacant, as an empty on the supply side?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    bobbyy gee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭bobbyy gee


    Most are still empty
    Owned by banks


  • #68
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    So apartments in New Priory, that requires to be totally rebuild, how this is vacant as an available supply? nobody could live there.

    If I bought a new home, but haven't moved in yet. It's obviously will be available for future occupation (for myself), but how this is vacant, as an empty on the supply side?

    The whole point of the census is to measure the data at given point in time - in this case the entire housing stock.

    But nobody expects that situation to be frozen in time.

    So in both cases the properties were unoccupied as in vacant on the night of the census but are now occupied - so by definition they constituted unused supply of housing stock that is now used.

    Unlike the Fingal Co Co analysis the census aims to count the entire housing stock. So if you have bought a new home but not moved in on the night of the census, the chances are high on that night that you are living in another house, either rented or owned, and when you move out of that house somebody else will move in, and so on and so on.

    Classifying a house that somebody has not yet moved into as occupied misses that entirely. It makes perfect sense to classify it as vacant, when you are measuring the entire housing stock and the population.

    Fingal Co Co would classify it as occupied, but that is counting one household as two, which extrapolated out across the entire country and population would vastly overstate the current housing need.


  • #69
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    I found out this year that I live in a vacant property. As do my parents and my brother.
    We were all away for a family event during the last census so never saw a form.
    Then I hear from people that since none of us were in our houses, our houses are classed as vacant.


  • #70
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    The whole point of the census is to measure the data at given point in time - in this case the entire housing stock.

    But nobody expects that situation to be frozen in time.

    So in both cases the properties were unoccupied as in vacant on the night of the census but are now occupied - so by definition they constituted unused supply of housing stock that is now used.

    Unlike the Fingal Co Co analysis the census aims to count the entire housing stock. So if you have bought a new home but not moved in on the night of the census, the chances are high on that night that you are living in another house, either rented or owned, and when you move out of that house somebody else will move in, and so on and so on.

    Classifying a house that somebody has not yet moved into as occupied misses that entirely. It makes perfect sense to classify it as vacant, when you are measuring the entire housing stock and the population.

    Fingal Co Co would classify it as occupied, but that is counting one household as two, which extrapolated out across the entire country and population would vastly overstate the current housing need.

    New Priory was total rebuild, so no, most of old apartments was not used anymore. It was rebuilt, and sold as New property.

    At least one thing you got right, that CSO vacancy numbers, has nothing todo with long term vacancy numbers. Large portion that was vacant during census, are not vacant anymore

    I told already 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.


  • #71
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    New Priory was total rebuild, so no, most of old apartments was not used anymore. It was rebuilt, and sold as New property.

    At least one thing you got right, that CSO vacancy numbers, has nothing todo with long term vacancy numbers. Large portion that was vacant during census, are not vacant anymore

    I told already few times:

    Ok so the old apartments did not reenter the housing stock, but the new ones became fresh housing stock. From a housing stock analysis point of view it does not make a lot of difference.

    The CSO measures long term vacancies as properties that are vacant on consecutive censuses. Nobody least of all the census is claiming there are 180k long term vacant properties.

    The point is on census night 12% of the housing stock was classified as vacant, it should be closer to 6%.

    The conversation the government should be having is why is that vacancy rate double the long term average?

    By claiming there is nothing to see here, they are in danger of overestimating the long term requirements for additional housing stock.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,084 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I found out this year that I live in a vacant property. As do my parents and my brother.
    We were all away for a family event during the last census so never saw a form.
    Then I hear from people that since none of us were in our houses, our houses are classed as vacant.

    And they were vacant - on census night. They have since become occupied again.


  • #73
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    JimmyVik wrote: »
    I found out this year that I live in a vacant property. As do my parents and my brother.
    We were all away for a family event during the last census so never saw a form.
    Then I hear from people that since none of us were in our houses, our houses are classed as vacant.

    of course there will be errors, it is impossible to measure the entire housing stock without making some mistakes. I am not claiming it is 100% accurate.

    What I am claiming is:

    a) it is the best available data we have
    b) the idea that it is patently false as proven by Fingal Co Co is nonsense and blatant spin


  • #74
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 54,106 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    And they were vacant - on census night. They have since become occupied again.

    Er, no.

    His house was not a vacant property when he was away for a family event, the same way your house is not vacant property when you go do your shopping.


  • #75
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    Ok so the old apartments did not reenter the housing stock, but the new ones became fresh housing stock. From a housing stock analysis point of view it does not make a lot of difference.

    The CSO measures long term vacancies as properties that are vacant on consecutive censuses. Nobody least of all the census is claiming there are 180k long term vacant properties.

    The point is on census night 12% of the housing stock was classified as vacant, it should be closer to 6%.

    The conversation the government should be having is why is that vacancy rate double the long term average?

    By claiming there is nothing to see here, they are in danger of overestimating the long term requirements for additional housing stock.

    Right, so building that is ready for knocking down, is vacant based on Census. Person who has bought his home but haven't moved in is vacand based on Census.

    Now question to you, how do you understand Census on different scenarios.

    Assume Rental apartment building with 100 apartments, all 100% rented out.
    Weekend before census, for 10 of them residendents has not stayed in apartment. During census weekend another 10 was empty, with residents away. After census a different 10 apartments has been empty for the weekend.
    In your opinion what could be expect vacancy rate for the building in terms of Census?


  • #76
    enricoh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,972 ✭✭✭enricoh


    schmittel wrote: »
    of course there will be errors, it is impossible to measure the entire housing stock without making some mistakes. I am not claiming it is 100% accurate.

    What I am claiming is:

    a) it is the best available data we have
    b) the idea that it is patently false as proven by Fingal Co Co is nonsense and blatant spin

    Why would you say it was blatant spin? They have a large social housing list in fingal and investigated properties with a view to try renting them. It turned out the vast majority were occupied.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/number-of-vacant-homes-may-be-grossly-overstated-1.3220063%3fmode=amp


  • #77
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    Right, so building that is ready for knocking down, is vacant based on Census. Person who has bought his home but haven't moved in is vacand based on Census.

    Now question to you, how do you understand Census on different scenarios.

    Assume Rental apartment building with 100 apartments, all 100% rented out.
    Weekend before census, for 10 of them residendents has not stayed in apartment. During census weekend another 10 was empty, with residents away. After census a different 10 apartments has been empty for the weekend.
    In your opinion what could be expect vacancy rate for the building in terms of Census?

    According to the methodology of the census I would expect the vacancy rate to be 0. It is 100% occupied.
    During the course of their work the census enumerators were instructed to speak with neighbours to determine/verify the status of vacant dwellings

    Now I'll put a hypothetical scenario to you to see how you understand the census:

    Small village of 5 households, 10 residents consisting of 5 couples.
    They decide to pool resources together and build a new development of 5 houses that they intend to live in - 1 each.
    Come census night houses almost finished but not connected to electricity or water. i.e doors, windows and roof are intact but nobody has moved in. The couples are all still living in their old houses.

    In your opinion how should the census record these properties?


  • #78
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    enricoh wrote: »
    Why would you say it was blatant spin? They have a large social housing list in fingal and investigated properties with a view to try renting them. It turned out the vast majority were occupied.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/number-of-vacant-homes-may-be-grossly-overstated-1.3220063%3fmode=amp

    That article is blatant spin. Take a look at this post and this post


  • #79
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    According to the methodology of the census I would expect the vacancy rate to be 0. It is 100% occupied.



    Now I'll put a hypothetical scenario to you to see how you understand the census:

    Small village of 5 households, 10 residents consisting of 5 couples.
    They decide to pool resources together and build a new development of 5 houses that they intend to live in - 1 each.
    Come census night houses almost finished but not connected to electricity or water. i.e doors, windows and roof are intact but nobody has moved in. The couples are all still living in their old houses.

    In your opinion how should the census record these properties?

    "While we don’t have a complete picture, we did note that many of the homes recorded as vacant were for sale, rental properties, had a deceased owner or were being renovated. Many of these may well have been occupied again a few weeks after the Census was completed."
    "It includes homes that were vacant for a short period of time. They may have been for sale or in probate or the owner may have been in hospital or a nursing home. These homes may well have been occupied again a few weeks after Census Night and may not be included in other counts of vacancy. "
    "Of the total 183,312 vacant properties ‘reasons for vacancy data’ was captured and summarised for 57,246 properties; the remaining 126,066 notes panels were either blank (124,595) or failed to provide information that could be readily summarised."

    We will not see true investigation on numbers from Census, as nobody can review it on individual properties, nor I expect much investigation to be done with neighbors during census. Many may say, they don't know.

    Regarding to your question, in terms of Census, yes it may be defined as vacant. But its someone property, that intend to live, it can't be done anything about this new property, so it's not right to add those new properties as a vacant property for the open market on supply side.


  • #80
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    "While we don’t have a complete picture, we did note that many of the homes recorded as vacant were for sale, rental properties, had a deceased owner or were being renovated. Many of these may well have been occupied again a few weeks after the Census was completed."

    Yes, of course there are vacant rental properties - take a look at the rent drops thread. The example you gave were not vacant and would not have been recorded as such.
    Marius34 wrote: »
    Regarding to your question, in terms of Census, yes it may be defined as vacant. But its someone property, that intend to live, it can't be done anything about this new property, [/I][/Bso it's not right to add those new properties as a vacant property for the open market on supply side[/I][/B].

    Once they all move into the new propertys the old ones become vacant and presumably available for rent or buy. So the village now has 10 properties in total, 5 vacant. Same as on census night.

    You are criticising the census for recording properties as vacant that are not available as supply meaning for sale/rent in the short term.

    But the census does not give a damn about the short term movement of housing transactions, or how many ads are on myhome. The whole point of the census is an attempt to measure the big picture so that long term planning decisions can be taken.

    That's why I used my example of the hypothetical village.

    The census would record that village as having 10 residents in 5 households with a housing stock of 10 - 5 occupied and 5 vacant.

    Fingal Co Co (and their fans) would simply look at the village and say there are no vacant properties.

    Hypothetically the population of the village to grow is expected to grow by 20% over the next ten years.

    Long term planners (and market commentators) who rely on the census data will say - "that's fine there is already sufficient housing stock for those numbers in that village, it can absorb the 20% growth no problem."

    Long term planners (and market commentators) who think that the CSO have got it wrong, and Fingal Co Co are right would say "20% growth? There is nowhere for them to live. We better build another house in that village."

    Fingals approach would compound an already existing oversupply problem.


  • #81
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    Yes, of course there are vacant rental properties - take a look at the rent drops thread. The example you gave were not vacant and would not have been recorded as such.



    Once they all move into the new propertys the old ones become vacant and presumably available for rent or buy. So the village now has 10 properties in total, 5 vacant. Same as on census night.

    You are criticising the census for recording properties as vacant that are not available as supply meaning for sale/rent in the short term.

    But the census does not give a damn about the short term movement of housing transactions, or how many ads are on myhome. The whole point of the census is an attempt to measure the big picture so that long term planning decisions can be taken.

    That's why I used my example of the hypothetical village.

    The census would record that village as having 10 residents in 5 households with a housing stock of 10 - 5 occupied and 5 vacant.

    Fingal Co Co (and their fans) would simply look at the village and say there are no vacant properties.

    Hypothetically the population of the village to grow is expected to grow by 20% over the next ten years.

    Long term planners (and market commentators) who rely on the census data will say - "that's fine there is already sufficient housing stock for those numbers in that village, it can absorb the 20% growth no problem."

    Long term planners (and market commentators) who think that the CSO have got it wrong, and Fingal Co Co are right would say "20% growth? There is nowhere for them to live. We better build another house in that village."

    Fingals approach would compound an already existing oversupply problem.

    So you expect rental neighbors to know each other, to give a clear information for Census..

    No, I was not criticizing census, I said this is not the vacancy people have in mind. Most are not long term vacancy, or not in livable conditions. There is always movements, you can't do much about it, nor the Census could record properly about all cases. Those type of vacancy numbers always will be high.

    Regarding to your example. Yes once they move to new house, the old may become vacant. But it can take long time, so at that time is not really vacant to be brought on the market.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    So you expect rental neighbors to know each other, to give a clear information for Census..

    Possibly not, but enumerators have to make more than two visits to property to classify it as vacant. Also there is mechanism if it is vacant and the occupant is present and accounted elsewhere in the country it can be cross referenced.

    I'll repeat, I am not saying the system is 100% correct, that's an impossible claim, but it is the best we have.
    Marius34 wrote: »
    No, I was not criticizing census, I said this is not the vacancy people have in mind. Most are not long term vacancy, or not in livable conditions. There is always movements, you can't do much about it, nor the Census could record properly about all cases. Those type of vacancy numbers always will be high.

    It may not be the vacancy people have in mind but it is the type of vacancy the census is trying to measure:

    Q) How many properties are vacant at a specific point in time - 26th April 2016?
    A) Approx 180,000 or 12% of the existing housing stock. Twice the long term norm.
    Marius34 wrote: »
    Regarding to your example. Yes once they move to new house, the old may become vacant. But it can take long time, so at that time is not really vacant to be brought on the market.

    Again that is not what the census is trying to measure, nor is it what I have tried to claim anytime I have quoted census data only to be told the data has been proven to be "patently false".

    It doesn't really matter if a bunch of posters on boards think Fingal Co Co is a better source than the CSO for measuring this sort of thing, but when the Housing Minister gets on board with this narrative it can lead to very bad future planning decisions.


  • #83
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    Possibly not, but enumerators have to make more than two visits to property to classify it as vacant. Also there is mechanism if it is vacant and the occupant is present and accounted elsewhere in the country it can be cross referenced.

    I'll repeat, I am not saying the system is 100% correct, that's an impossible claim, but it is the best we have.



    It may not be the vacancy people have in mind but it is the type of vacancy the census is trying to measure:

    Q) How many properties are vacant at a specific point in time - 26th April 2016?
    A) Approx 180,000 or 12% of the existing housing stock. Twice the long term norm.



    Again that is not what the census is trying to measure, nor is it what I have tried to claim anytime I have quoted census data only to be told the data has been proven to be "patently false".

    It doesn't really matter if a bunch of posters on boards think Fingal Co Co is a better source than the CSO for measuring this sort of thing, but when the Housing Minister gets on board with this narrative it can lead to very bad future planning decisions.

    And that's a point, Census vacancy, means something else, to what people mean about vacancy. So it's wrong to bring those numbers as supplies, that can flood the market for sales.
    Most of those properties are not long term vacancies. So not much can be done around it, numbers always will be high, it doesn't mean that it can flood the market.


  • #84
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    And that's a point, Census vacancy, means something else, to what people mean about vacancy. So it's wrong to bring those numbers as supplies, that can flood the market for sales.
    Most of those properties are not long term vacancies. So not much can be done around it, numbers always will be high, it doesn't mean that it can flood the market.

    But who has talked about these vacancy numbers representing supply flooding the market in the short term? Nobody as far as I recall.

    Sure they represent supply that is potentially available sooner than the time it would take to build an equivalent number, but that's a different statement.

    You say numbers of these vacancies will always be high but my point is they will not always be 12%.


  • #85
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    But who has talked about these vacancy numbers representing supply flooding the market in the short term? Nobody as far as I recall.

    Sure they represent supply that is potentially available sooner than the time it would take to build an equivalent number, but that's a different statement.

    You say numbers of these vacancies will always be high but my point is they will not always be 12%.

    You was using those number, to defend that there are no shortage. Large numbers of them are short term, and they have residents who use those properties. So makes no sense to defend no shortage with Census vacancy numbers.
    They may no be 12% in the future, but they can be 10%-11% for very long, for this type of methodology. It has not solved, and will not solve shortage problem.


  • #86
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    You was using those number, to defend that there are no shortage. Large numbers of them are short term, and they have residents who use those properties. So makes no sense to defend no shortage with Census vacancy numbers.
    They may no be 12% in the future, but they can be 10%-11% for very long, for this type of methodology. It has not solved, and will not solve shortage problem.

    I have always acknowledged there is a current shortage of available property. I am using the census data to conclude that long term the shortage is not as acute as it is claimed, and building 30k a year for the next decade to solve the current shortage will lead to significant oversupply.

    Nothing you or Fingal Co Co have said have changed my mind on this.


  • #87
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    I have always acknowledged there is a current shortage of available property. I am using the census data to conclude that long term the shortage is not as acute as it is claimed, and building 30k a year for the next decade to solve the current shortage will lead to significant oversupply.

    Nothing you or Fingal Co Co have said have changed my mind on this.

    It's 2016 data, it passed over 4 years, is it a short term? what has changed with shortage?


  • #88
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    It's 2016 data, it passed over 4 years, is it a short term? what has changed with shortage?

    This is the Hubertj school of thought. You cannot compare census data because it is 5 years apart etc etc.

    It also completely misses the point of the census. The whole idea is to compare the findings of consecutive censuses overtime to try and identify long term planning trends.

    So the data is not much use if you are trying to solve a homeless problem next month.

    But it is of enormous value when making decisions like how many houses to build over the next decade and beyond.


  • #89
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭Marius34


    schmittel wrote: »
    This is the Hubertj school of thought. You cannot compare census data because it is 5 years apart etc etc.

    It also completely misses the point of the census. The whole idea is to compare the findings of consecutive censuses overtime to try and identify long term planning trends.

    So the data is not much use if you are trying to solve a homeless problem next month.

    But it is of enormous value when making decisions like how many houses to build over the next decade and beyond.

    And has it solved in over past 4 years time? is this a short term?
    why would it studently make those numbers a difference discussing supply/demand on Property Market 2020?


  • #90
    Hubertj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Hubertj


    schmittel wrote: »
    This is the Hubertj school of thought. You cannot compare census data because it is 5 years apart etc etc.

    It also completely misses the point of the census. The whole idea is to compare the findings of consecutive censuses overtime to try and identify long term planning trends.

    So the data is not much use if you are trying to solve a homeless problem next month.

    But it is of enormous value when making decisions like how many houses to build over the next decade and beyond.

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


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    And has it solved in over past 4 years time? is this a short term?
    why would it studently make those numbers a difference discussing supply/demand on Property Market 2020?

    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.


  • #92
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭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 ;)


  • #93
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭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
    527921.JPG


  • #94
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Marius34 wrote: »
    But those numbers was relevant to "prove" no shortage back in q2 2020
    527921.JPG

    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.


  • #95
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭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.

    527931.JPG

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


  • #96
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭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.

    527931.JPG

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭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?


  • #98
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭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.


  • #99
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭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"


  • #100
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,181 ✭✭✭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?


  • #101
    Marius34
    Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement