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

This has been debunked numerous times. The CSO only includes what they consider to be habitable dwellings in their count of vacancies.

Granted, perhaps their definition of habitable does not mean somebody can move in tomorrow, but it is highly likely that somebody could move in, in less time than it would take to build a brand new house from scratch.

And it is highly unlikely the 33k available rentals were un inhabitable.

And the 100k properties available supply I mentioned in post you quoted were specifically referring to those properties tummy disregarded because he thinks they were probably occupied a few weeks after census night.

Hang on you can't argue it both ways.

Either the 100k properties were actually available on the market at census time, and probably occupied a few weeks later, hence can be disregarded as potential available supply.

Or they were not actually available on the market at census time, hence they cannot be disregarded as potential available supply.

Which is it?

You claim that 100k units would be enough to solve our housing issues. The fact that we make 30k a year new and prices continue to rise (flatline now) disproves this point.

Yes, I have absolutely no doubt that hypothetically if there were 100k units available for sale or rent today, or indeed at the time of the census, we would not be discussing any housing market problems.

I don't believe for a second there were 100k units available for sale or rent at the time of the census, it's your claim:

"48k long term vacancies according to CSO based on successive census'. Anything else could have been determined to be occupied only weeks after census night."

Disregarding everything except the long term 48k on the grounds that they were turnover stock occupied shortly after indicates there was at least 100k in turnover stock available at that time.

Thats how cso determine a vacant is rental - based on ads at the time of census.

This is just so abundantly wrong, it is absurd. The CSO have listed 33k of the vacants as rentals. The idea that they did this because they found 33k ads on daft is laughable. Sure they might look at daft, and see if the information is corroborated, but they absolutely are not using daft to determine the status of why a property is vacant.

I keep reiterating we can agree to disagree on this, yet you keep coming back with more misunderstandings. Are you happy just to drop it?

You missed out the title of the section you quoted: The number of dwellings attributed as being available to rent seems very high compared with what is available on websites. Why?

The CSO are explaining to you why their count of vacancies determined as rentals is significantly higher than the number of ads listed on websites and yet you are claiming this is telling you "Thats how cso determine a vacant is rental - based on ads at the time of census."

If in the course of their visits the enumerators get information that it is a rental between tenants, or an airbnb, whether that is from neighbours or owners, they classify it as a rental. It's nothing to do with ads on websites.

If the neighbour says it's a rental, but it's empty at the minute because the last tenants moved out six months ago - it's a rental.

If the neighbour says it is an airbnb - its a rental.

If the owner says it's a rental, because they'd rather say that than admit they're leaving property vacant during a housing crisis - it's a rental.

If the owner says it's between tenants, and I'm in the process of waiting two years to have rent cap removed - it's a rental.

In total they counted about 35k of these rentals of various flavours.

Nothing to do with how many ads on are on property websites.