May 30, 2008
SF: Earthquake Preparedness…by Force
I lived in Santa Cruz (right by the epicenter) when the Loma Prieta Earthquake hit in 1989. The experience was terrifying, yet I’ve ended up settling in San Francisco, a city we all know is constantly threatened by a large quake. We just don’t know when that threat will actually be realized. Science Daily projected, however, that “California has more than a 99% chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake within the next 30 years.”
Still, sometimes it seems San Franciscans ignore this reality, perhaps because they feel there is nothing they can do to stop it. And there isn’t, of course, but we can be prepared. I admit feely that I am not: I constantly run through my “earthquake stock” of canned food and bottled water before I buy more. We used our last battery pack to juice an old school ghetto blaster for a party in the park, and I’ve yet to buy new ones. If the big one hit today, I’d have to survive–in the dark– on one can of tuna and the beets I bought specifically because I knew no one in the house would ever open them.
Our mayor, Gavin Newsom, has a plan to get us ready for the quake– and this plan can’t be quite as easily ignored. Curbed SF reports:
His new plan requires homeowners, especially those with “soft-story” buildings (those with garages on the first level), to retrofit their buildings with seismic upgrades. At their own expense.
Now, I am not a homeowner yet, because of the expense of homeowning in this city. I wonder how much forced retrofitting would add to the price tag? I realize such an action is important, especially in vulnerable neighborhoods like the Sunset and the Marina, and with earthquake insurance being hard to get and prohibitively expensive itself.
But can a city actually compell already cash-strapped homeowners to retrofit their homes? Some residents, as Curbed quotes, don’t think so. “Resident Shawna McGrew best sums up the local attitude, “It’s my home; it’s my home to lose.”
—
Loma Prieta quake photo: A car crushed by the third floor of a collapsed apartment building. Photo by J.K. Nagata, USGS, appearing on Wikipedia.
David said:
That’s right, it’s your home to lose. Then don’t come stealing my money (through tax dollars) from FEMA or whatnot to rebuild your house, Ms. McGrew. Take it like a big girl and rebuild it on your own dime.
May 30, 2008 12:56 PM
red said:
Sure they can require it, certain retrofits on sales are already required: Low flow toilets, smoke alarms for example. Remodel, and earthquake retrofits are usually required.
Since bay area prices are driven by affordability, not construction cost, the effect on the value in a home sale would most likely be minor, particularly with declining values already.
This may not be popular with owners of unsafe buildings, but in an area with such a high likelihood of quakes and building density it is an entirely reasonable requirement. Relative to the home valuation, for most, the retrofit is cheap insurance.
May 30, 2008 1:07 PM
Anna said:
interesting- yes, it is a sort of insurance. Does anyone know what retrofitting costs?
May 30, 2008 7:52 PM
anon said:
Retrofitting costs vary widely depending on where you are, what condition your foundation is in, and how big your home is. (Basically, if you’ve got a single-story home on a flat lot with an accessible foundation, it’s a few grand; change any of those factors and costs begin to rise. On a steep hill with a foundation in bad shape, you could be looking at tens of thousands–but in that scenario, you likely needed a new foundation anyway, so why not take the opportunity to retrofit.) For what it’s worth, retrofitting not only helps with quakes, but also seems to improve the general sound/shaking of a house (from trucks, hammering, etc.) It’s also worth noting that earthquake insurance may not be an especially good investment in the Bay Area–it’s highly regulated by the state, and the fine print notes that in the event of a large quake with a lot of claims, you are not necessarily entitled to any payments (to protect the state from being bankrupted by claims, since the pool of funding is limited). Even if you do receive payments, they cover only a small percentage of damages and are very specific. So broadly speaking, it’s only a smart investment if you expect your home to be one of a few to suffer damage in a moderate–but not major–quake (e.g., you live on a hill, you have a difficult-to-retrofit foundation, etc.) Generally, I think it’s wiser to invest that money in a retrofit.
May 30, 2008 9:31 PM
Anna said:
thanks, Anon. Very helpful. So indeed, the act of retrofitting is insurance, perhaps of a more useful kind the the sort you pay monthly for. I found an interesting comment on the Curbed blog that would help here in SF too, with cost:
“The city of Berkeley will return a percentage of the transfer tax when a property is sold if the new owners use the money for a qualified seismic upgrade. So at least when a building is sold, there’s retrofit funding avaialble. Virtually all new property owners take advantage of the money; there’s no downside. Worth considering in SF.”
May 31, 2008 11:00 AM