What Happened to The Vacant Properties Counted in the Census?

Marius34 wrote: »

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

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

Marius34 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marius34 wrote: »

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

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

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

I noticed you omitted the figures for the cities:

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

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

Recently Vacant.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Long term vacancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marius34 wrote: »

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

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

So keep consistent.

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

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


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

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

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

Marius34 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marius34 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would you attempt to explain this difference?

Marius34 wrote: »

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

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

Thank you for answering the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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