The third in a series on how housing figures in Ireland become “true.” The first two showed how a soft number gets accepted. This one shows how a hard number gets dismissed.
It certainly should. I’ve read that Progress Ireland post and I recall seeing the Ronan Lyon’s article too. Really must commend you on the in-depth critical thinking. There’s actually a great opportunity to combine the too datasets too, as you say to indicate the long-term vacancy and the “pool” of properties that people move through.
I know you allude to it, but would be very interested to compare the CSO “vacant for rent, sale” etc… with the same figures on Daft etc… Have you on data / research on this? My instinct would be that (as you say) these figures don’t line up and that there is to some extent a degree of “hoarding” of these properties. Though for me to make such claims (without evidence) would be the antithesis of your article ;).
Howevere one dataset that combined these: long term vacancies, the “pool” of vacancies for reselling / rental, and the “hoarded” properties would be extremely useful for both policy making and public discussion.
The CSO “vacant for rent, sale” figures are way out of kilter with Daft etc, the dogs on the street know that, and it is a reason many people dismiss the census figures - eg "We know there wasn't 30k empty rentals in April 2022, the census must be wrong etc etc".
"Hoarding" is a bit of a trigger word in the debate, and as such is unfortunately counterproductive. Start saying people are "hoarding" properties and cue outrage, accusations of being a vacancy truther, economics 101 will tell you that people do not leave properties empty in high demand areas etc etc.
But economics 101 only holds when all other things are equal. That's the blindspot. There is ample evidence that there are conditions present that create incentives to not making property available for sale or rent. Consider those conditions and the CSO vacancy figures make perfect sense and are displaying exactly the sort of the patterns you would expect to see from property owners making rational decisions.
I have done some work on the data and have a follow up post to this, which will publish this week.
That's an interesting point and not a lot of discussion about WHERE vacant properties are, WHAT kinds of properties are vacant, what their usage was before they were vacant, what kind of owner they have and patterns of living around the area. Without precise information on that, solutions are far harder to discern, and what works for one area might be a disaster for elsewhere.
I think you're right to highlight the issues vary by area. But we do have good information, the census data is broken down by LEA. I think the bigger problem is nobody is looking at it!
Please do crack on and write it, the more people discussing this stuff the better, that's exactly why I started writing about it, in the hope that others would too!
Excellent and incredibly insightful.
Thanks Shane, it should be better understood than it is currently.
It certainly should. I’ve read that Progress Ireland post and I recall seeing the Ronan Lyon’s article too. Really must commend you on the in-depth critical thinking. There’s actually a great opportunity to combine the too datasets too, as you say to indicate the long-term vacancy and the “pool” of properties that people move through.
I know you allude to it, but would be very interested to compare the CSO “vacant for rent, sale” etc… with the same figures on Daft etc… Have you on data / research on this? My instinct would be that (as you say) these figures don’t line up and that there is to some extent a degree of “hoarding” of these properties. Though for me to make such claims (without evidence) would be the antithesis of your article ;).
Howevere one dataset that combined these: long term vacancies, the “pool” of vacancies for reselling / rental, and the “hoarded” properties would be extremely useful for both policy making and public discussion.
The CSO “vacant for rent, sale” figures are way out of kilter with Daft etc, the dogs on the street know that, and it is a reason many people dismiss the census figures - eg "We know there wasn't 30k empty rentals in April 2022, the census must be wrong etc etc".
"Hoarding" is a bit of a trigger word in the debate, and as such is unfortunately counterproductive. Start saying people are "hoarding" properties and cue outrage, accusations of being a vacancy truther, economics 101 will tell you that people do not leave properties empty in high demand areas etc etc.
But economics 101 only holds when all other things are equal. That's the blindspot. There is ample evidence that there are conditions present that create incentives to not making property available for sale or rent. Consider those conditions and the CSO vacancy figures make perfect sense and are displaying exactly the sort of the patterns you would expect to see from property owners making rational decisions.
I have done some work on the data and have a follow up post to this, which will publish this week.
That's an interesting point and not a lot of discussion about WHERE vacant properties are, WHAT kinds of properties are vacant, what their usage was before they were vacant, what kind of owner they have and patterns of living around the area. Without precise information on that, solutions are far harder to discern, and what works for one area might be a disaster for elsewhere.
I think you're right to highlight the issues vary by area. But we do have good information, the census data is broken down by LEA. I think the bigger problem is nobody is looking at it!
And there is as me thinking I’d thought of my next post! Delighted to hear it - I look forward to reading it.
Please do crack on and write it, the more people discussing this stuff the better, that's exactly why I started writing about it, in the hope that others would too!