Thousands of empty homes adding to Sydney's housing crisis

Sydney's housing affordability crisis is being artificially inflated by up to 90,000 properties standing empty in some of the city's most desirable suburbs according to the analysis by the UNSW's City Futures Research Centre.

According to 2011 census, in Sydney's "emptiest" neighbourhood of the CBD, Haymarket and The Rocks, one in seven dwellings was vacant.

Close behind were Manly-Fairlight, Potts Point-Woolloomooloo, Darlinghurst and Neutral Bay - Kirribilli, which all had vacancy levels above 13 per cent. These neighbourhoods, together with central Sydney, account for nearly 7200 empty homes.

I am liking the proposal being developed by the NSW Federation of Housing Associations that would see any long-term vacant properties hit with higher council rates - similar to parts of the UK.

"If you're not using the home as a place for people to live ... in this crisis I think it's reasonable that there's an extra charge on that property," said the federation's chief executive Wendy Hayhurst.

The additional revenue generated could be directed towards affordable housing, Ms Hayhurst said.

 

Some context would be good. So there's 7200 empty homes. What's normal? 1000? 7100? I hate doing journalists' jobs for them.

 

I'm sceptical of this report. I would guess that inner city residents would be more likely to be out the night census workers door knocked than those living in the suburbs.
Here is the article:
'National scandal': A city in housing crisis with 90,000 empty homes

 

The article was shared on Facebook. The comments were most entertaining.


I imagine there is a large number if cbd pads acting as weekenders.

 

I only just learnt today my neighbour of 7 years has a holiday home at Umina Beach. He doesn't rent it out but lets his family use it whenever they like.
And when I was younger I went out a few times with a guy who was the eldest of 13. His dad who was an anesthetist had a holiday house at Copacabana. Ditto same thing. Now I reckon these areas would have quite a few empty homes. As long as the owners arent stressed out by any costs of ownership, why not?

 

Another media property investor beat up. Did you note the part near the end when it referred to holding an empty property and negative gearing tax benefits? Yeah right. Regrettably so many well read that and say "shocking!" without understanding or even thinking. And based on 2011 data as well !

Ho-hum, another day, another SMH agenda.

BTW, I live in one of those top suburbs mentioned. I can look across the street and see 2 empty $3m+ houses as I type. Owned by foreign buyers, probably not investing just keeping their cash out of their own country.

As for affecting housing affordability, look at the price bracket of the homes mentioned, not really first home owner market.

 

Some owners working interstate and left their house empty or on short-term rental via airnb. There are also plenty of new apartments in Wolli Creek and Rhodes. Don't think it's a crisis in general.

 

The solution is free homes for all the journalists, problem will no longer exist.

 

2011 data. Phtt

 

Ooops I refusedto answer the door, survive on rainwater and live off-grid. Does that count?

 

Yes, the journos know your type, buy up everything and leave it empty just to stuff them and the affordability up.....they are onto you.....

 

oh ya, leaving empty to claim tax, beat up on NG again

 

This article is quite spot on. The owner of the house next door to me lives overseas and only comes back twice a year. It's a big 5 bedroom place and she doesn't want to rent the house out or sell it. It's good in one way (keeps things quiet around here), but sometimes I wonder what happens if there is a break-in or a fire? I was told that if a property is vacant for more than 60 days, it can affect your insurance. I wonder if these vacant places have any furniture or valuables in them?

 

If the NSW property Council and developers are continually advising us the general public that there is a 40,000 dwelling shortfall in Sydney and that number rises 5,000 per annum, then there should serious research into significantly vacant properties.

We would all know about a property or several that the family are leaving vacant whilst a parent is a nursing home, or an investor not wanting to degrade their property, or whatever the reason.

There are properties available and should be used rather than the status quo of squeezing as many 2 bedroom apartments as possible so a small minority makes some money.

 

1. Agreed - the gummint &/or the Property Council can fund my PhD in research into this issue
2. There are plenty of examples of this in every suburb - deceased estates lying in ruin due to inaction by the beneficiaries (too emotionally attached)/executor/died intestate; those who have holiday houses which sit vacant; those belonging to people residing in God's waiting room but haven't sold up; sold/vacated but awaiting settlement; subject to DA/CC/Presales/Construction Finance
3. 2 bedders aren't always the solution in every market - down sizers; groups; students; families; extended families; visitors; lifestyle requirements etc all contribute to the market research which drives demand.

 

Every capital city and country has thousands of vacant homes. The fact that they imply that it's negative gearing and foreign investors causing this issue is pretty dumb. Unless there's data that separates vacant owner occupier homes from investors homes then you can only apply the 70:30 ratio and then it's simply 2/3rd's of home owners not being at home on one particular night of the week. Five years ago

The number is also down about 10% from the 2006 census (211,000) so these two factors haven't had as much impact as the article imposes.

 

Isnt this just sour grapes?

Shouldnt owners be able to do whatever they want with their properties

 

Not if the public is being sold a furphy that there are no vacancies and we need to keep building more. If there are existing properties that could be utilized the idea should be explored.

Overseas models tend to charge a levy if the property is left vacant for more than 2 years which I feel is a fair enough time period.

I agree that the links to overseas buyers and investors are tenuous at best, but the idea of investigating the proposal is sound.

My 2 cents.

 

Maybe I'm seeing this too simplistically, but each empty property is actually placing less demand on the garbage collection services, the local roads would have less traffic (slightly, by only a vehicle or two per day, per property, but you get the point), and less water and sewage provisions required etc - so why should they be charged more?

 

My understanding is that the 'normal' level of vacancies is ~7% - this is caused by renovations, the interval between buying & selling, rental turnover, holiday homes/weekenders, people on holiday, or working interstate - all normal life events.

A few areas have 14% vacancies, a few have 2%, all the rest of somewhere in between - this is normal statistical distribution. The story has highlighted the outliers & linked it to NG - this months well proven clickbait.

If we had zero vacancies then rents/prices would skyrocket. There needs to be some slack (ie vacancies) in the market to allow it to function.

Land Tax was created to discourage hoarding of land/properties - are you suggesting the removal of land tax & replace it with something else ?