The various crises in housing in Ireland has been a constant focus of the media since the start of the crash.
First, it was plunging house prices, developers going bust, construction workers losing their jobs, and the collapsing of PPPs.
Then it was NAMA, vacancy, unfinished estates, pyrite-infected homes, Priory Hall and other poorly built estates, negative equity, and mortgage arrears.
Now it is rising rents, rising prices in Dublin, a shortage of homes in some locations, social housing waiting lists, rising homelessness, and probably from this summer on increasing numbers of repossessions.
Since 2007, all elements of housing, in all parts of the country, have been in crisis. For seven years we have effectively had no housing policy, no housing reforms, and no strong, proactive management designed to address the various problems. Rather, the government’s strategy under both the last regime and the present has been to tinker round the edges — site resolution plans, social and housing leasing initiative, a pyrite committee, minor reform to the Planning and Development Act, etc. None of it in a coordinated, holistic way.
With the exception of putting millions into NAMA to look after the banker and developer interests in an effort to try and salvage something from the disastrous bank guarantee , these are all low cost, minimal effort tactics to give the impression of doing something, but actually toothless and spineless and making very little difference on the ground. They were shamed into sorting of the mess relating to Priory Hall residents.
There has been no substantive investment in tackling various issues such as the 89,872 on the social housing waiting list, or the 96,474 in 90+ days in mortgage arrears, or rising homelessness. Investing in housing has not even to date been seen as a means of tackling two birds with one stone — creating jobs/investment in business and addressing various housing crises. Instead there has been massive disinvestment. For example, since 2008, the capital expenditure for social housing has been reduced by 80% (from €1.3bn to €275m) while there has been a 90% decrease in housing output from local authorities between 2007 and 2011.
The strategy in effect has been to try and muddle through to such times as the private sector and the market return to sort things out. At which point any state investment will be targeted at reviving market interests, with social housing continuing to be supplied through private development and rental supplement. In 2010, 97,260 families received rent supplement allowance to enable them to live in private rental stock due to a lack of social housing at a cost to the state of over €500 million per annum. In whose interest is such a policy? It is difficult to argue, unless you are a vested private interest, that it is the state’s or taxpayers’.
We will continue to have housing problems for a good number of years, especially in the absence of any holistic strategy and set of policies designed to try and coordinate and regulate development and how all aspects of the housing sector functions. That strategy needs to see good, affordable housing as a right; to see housing as homes rather than simply assets and investment vehicles. And it needs to get value for money for the state in terms of private services rendered.
That’s not to deny market interests’ profit, but that this profit is reasonable without being exploitative and does not rip-off both tenants and the state. Much of continental Europe manages to do this. Ireland, however, has swallowed the neoliberal mantra hook, line and sinker, and seven years of crisis has not led to any kind of re-think or change in vision or policy.
As the market returns and house and rental prices rise, in the absence of checks-and-balances such as rental control and adequate supply, affordability and the need for social housing and homelessness will increasingly become an issue, especially if local authorities remain emancipated of resources.
House prices turning and rents rising does not mean that that various problems of housing in Ireland are soon to be solved. They signal the arrival of the next wave of issues. Expect on-going housing crises for the foreseeable future.
Rob Kitchin
January 29, 2014
The geographical distribution of negative equity of post-2001 built residences in Ireland
Posted by irelandafternama under #Commentaries, Data | Tags: Ireland, map, mobility, negative equity, spatial distribution, spatial trap |[9] Comments
There is no official data regarding negative equity in Ireland in general, nor its geographical distribution. By mid-2012, once house prices had fallen to 50% of their 2007 values Davy Stockbrokers estimated that more than 50% of residential mortgages were in negative equity. Consequently, any house bought from 2000 onwards is likely to be in negative equity.
Negative equity is a significant issue because it creates a spatial trap that restricts mobility. Because the value of the property is less than was paid for it, owners cannot sell and move to another property without realising a loss. This trap has three consequences. First, it restricts labour market mobility. Second, it keeps families in homes that may no longer be suitable to their needs. Third, it restricts the pool of properties available to the market and limits any recovery to first time buyers, those prepared to realise a loss, those whose property is not in negative equity or have investment capital. All three have social and economic consequences causing hardship and stress and slowing the recovery of the wider economy.
Negative equity is not evenly distributed because it is determined by the price paid relative to present prices and this is largely shaped by when the house was bought. So where might this spatial trap be operating most perniciously in Ireland?
This is not an easy question to answer given publicly available data sources. We have been looking at proxy measures and present one here, though it should be noted that it only captures one kind of property in negative equity – houses that were built post-2001. It does not include secondhand houses in negative equity, nor buy-to-let properties in negative equity (though the latter can be estimated using a same method).
Our solution is to use two Census 2011 variables at the Small Area level. The first variable is the ‘% of housing units built post 2001’. The second variable is the ‘% of outstanding mortgages in an area’ (i.e., the property has been purchased not rented privately or from a local authority or voluntary body). These variables are not perfect, but when combined do give us, we think, a reasonably good proxy.
The figure below is a density smoothed scatterplot of the two variables for all 18,488 Small Areas in the country. Each Small Area has approximately 80-130 households. We have divided up the scatterplot into four quadrants, one of which is subdivided based on the clear pattern of points, to create six categories that denote different levels of negative equity (category 1 has very low rates of both post-2001 build and outstanding mortgages), which we have then mapped from the country and for Dublin.
It is important to note that all the Small Areas potentially have some households in negative equity, but that some areas have greater concentrations than others. In broad terms, categories 5 and 4 are likely to have similar levels of private residential negative equity, but we have left them separate to denote their different characteristics.
When these categories are mapped the pattern that emerges is perhaps what one would expect. The areas with the highest concentrations of negative equity are in the outer suburbs of the cities and the fringes of commuter towns. These areas experienced high rates of newly built properties and new household formation all through the boom, but especially in the latter years when the inner suburbs became too expensive for first time buyers and those trading up to a family home.
This pattern is very clear around Dublin, Cork and Limerick, but is slightly different around Galway, where a number of rural Small Areas are highlighted where there was a lot of one-off housing and small nucleated settlement. This pattern is repeated for many smaller rural towns.
Owner occupiers in these areas are more likely to be spatially trapped, though as noted any individual household in any part of the country could be suffering such a fate. It is also likely that the same areas will have higher concentrations of mortgage arrears, given that negative equity and mortgage arrears are related.
Whilst further research is needed to refine this analysis it does give a proxy measure of one kind of negative equity in the absence of detailed data from mortgage providers. We would be interested in any feedback about the approach taken.
Rob Kitchin
Share this:
Like this: