Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

What people don't seem to understand is that the short term vacancies at a point it time are extremely important, as these include properties for sale, for rent etc vacant because they are between owners/tenants.

For example, where reasons for vacancy were known, there were 35,380 vacant dwellings which were rental properties between tenants. That is a colossal number compared to the numbers actually apparently available to rent at the same time. The same is true of properties for sale - a far higher number than you would expect given the apparently available stock at the time.

The vacancy numbers of the census are being dismissed along the lines of the only thing that matter is long term vacancies so you can disregard most of the census count because they're vacant for valid reasons i.e for sale or rent.

But that totally ignores the fact that the census is showing a number of properties for sale or for rent that indicates there is absolutely no crisis in supply.

That's why short term vacancies are important.

It's not the CSO disagrees with you

On what point does the CSO disagree with me?

Short term will always be wrong, they are in use

You appear to be reverting back to the argument that the properties are not actually vacant?

And the only reason for that explanation is that the CSO is not able to carry out the census properly. That seems unlikely to me.

As I expected, we're back to the argument that even though the CSO has recorded them as vacant - i.e uninhabited - we can ignore that because "They are not actually vacant" and "Because someone lives there".

But that's quite a stretch.

Because it essentially amounts to the idea we should disregard the census because the CSO are incompetent. Personally I've seen no evidence of that, and it strikes me as the least likely explanation.

Now if all thee houses are vacant why is it that you think they are just lying there unused

I suspect the most likely explanation is the most obvious one - it's financial. Opportunity costs are low. Considering low interest rates, attractive capital gains, and a regulated rental market, for most of them it is a simple case of risk/reward. It pays to leave them vacant.

That's far less of a stretch.

Whatever the explanation, you and I are going around in circles. We can agree to disagree, it is no skin off my nose.

The census is a snap shot on one night. If you're not home will your property show up as vacant? It is vacant that night but if you are home next day is it really vacant.

As I have pointed out numerous times here this is a very widely held belief that is totally untrue.

From the CSO FAQ on their vacancy figures:

They establish this over a few visits, asking neighbours, looking for sings of occupancy etc.

The wide scale dismissal of the vacancy figures from the census as nothing to see here is entirely based on number of fictions.

Again this is a total fiction. The CSO do not count uninhabitable buildings as vacant.

Every argument advanced for ignoring these figures is based on widely held beliefs that are simply untrue.

Indeed. You've spotted that it sounds odd the CSO could record 35,000 rental properties empty on census night whilst simultaneously there were less than 1500 publicly available on the market.

You're totally right. It does sound odd. But that's exactly what happened: