Slashdot Mirror
LA Mayor Proposes Earthquake Retrofits On Thousands of Buildings
HughPickens.com writes The LA Times reports that Ls Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has proposed the most ambitious seismic safety regulations in California history that would require owners to retrofit thousands of buildings most at risk of collapse during a major earthquake. "The time for retrofit is now," says Garcetti, adding that the retrofits target buildings "that are known killers. Complacency risks lives. One thing we can't afford to do is wait." The mayor's plan calls for thousands of wood buildings to be retrofitted within five years, and hundreds of concrete buildings to be strengthened within 30. The retrofitting requirements must be approved by the City Council, and would have to be paid for by the building owners, with the costs presumably passed on to tenants and renters. The costs could be significant: $5,000 per unit in vulnerable wooden buildings and $15 per square foot for office buildings, Business owners, who have expressed concern in the past that these kinds of programs may be unaffordable, said the cost of retrofitting some buildings could easily exceed $1 million each. "This will cost us billions of dollars in the private and public sector," says Garcetti. "But we cannot afford not to do it."
The last major earthquake in Los Angeles was the 6.7-magnitude Northridge quake, which killed close to 60 people in 1994. But it was not close to the catastrophe that seismologists predict if there is a major shift on the San Andreas fault, and the fact that it has not produced a major quake in recent years has fed a sense of complacency. Seismologists now say a 7.5-magnitude event on the Puente Hills would be "the quake from hell" because it runs right under downtown Los Angeles and have estimated that would kill up to 18,000 people, make several million homeless, and cause up to $250 billion in damage. "We want to keep the city up and running after the earthquake happens," says Lucy Jones aka "The Earthquake Lady," a seismologist with the United States Geological Survey and something of a celebrity in a city that is very aware of the potential danger of its location. "If everything in this report is enacted, I believe that L.A. will not just survive the next earthquake, but will be able to recover quickly."
The last major earthquake in Los Angeles was the 6.7-magnitude Northridge quake, which killed close to 60 people in 1994. But it was not close to the catastrophe that seismologists predict if there is a major shift on the San Andreas fault, and the fact that it has not produced a major quake in recent years has fed a sense of complacency. Seismologists now say a 7.5-magnitude event on the Puente Hills would be "the quake from hell" because it runs right under downtown Los Angeles and have estimated that would kill up to 18,000 people, make several million homeless, and cause up to $250 billion in damage. "We want to keep the city up and running after the earthquake happens," says Lucy Jones aka "The Earthquake Lady," a seismologist with the United States Geological Survey and something of a celebrity in a city that is very aware of the potential danger of its location. "If everything in this report is enacted, I believe that L.A. will not just survive the next earthquake, but will be able to recover quickly."
Garcetti will have the undying love and money of builders and developers for years to come.
This will cost us billions of dollars in the private and public sector,
who is this "us" he is talking about? because with just a little thought, you quickly realized these "billions of dollars" are just transfers from the (assumed) wealthy building owners to the less wealthy contractors and workers.
one person's cost is another's paycheck and kids tuition payment.
if the public good is really being served here by improving safety of citizens, why isn't the discussion framed more along these lines?
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
There is NO construction method that will survive all quakes.
The only way to win is to not build in that area.
In this case the only successful retrofit is to redefine retrofit to "Move the building out of the quake zone".
Hey, it worked for a city built below sea level in an area prone to strong hurricanes...
There is no doubt that retrofits are needed, but this is a significant burden to businesses, homeowners, and anyone in the area.
The city of LA needs to soften that blow by offering something in return, be it some tax credits, interest free loans to homeowners, or something along those lines.
LA (and California as a whole) are places where businesses are fleeing from... this is why Austin, Seattle, and other cities are overrun with CA transplants. nailing everyone living in the city with such a financial burden will only make things worse and accelerate LA's decay.
From the LA times about earthquake insurance ...
Rethinking Your Stance on Earthquake Coverage
Californians have a well-deserved reputation for being in denial. We build our homes on flood plains, on brushy mountainsides, in the path of mudslides and on or near earthquake faults. Most of the time, most of us avoid catastrophe. But we should acknowledge that someday our luck could run out--and consider whether it's worth taking precautions to protect against the unthinkable.
http://www.latimes.com/la-home...
I suggest that.
Folks: the U.S. government (or any part thereof) can't just march in and force property owners to change their property. Government has to compensate the owners for any taking of a property-owner's rights. If the City of L.A. wants to march in and say "you don't get to use your office building because it isn't earthquake-proof", then the City has to buy the property at fair market value.
Are all politicians in California really this dumb? All they have to do is compile a list of buildings that the City deems to be unsafe, and the owners will be sufficiently encouraged to make the upgrades (or lose their present tenants.) No subsidies, no tax breaks, no cost to the city.
... the San Andreas trailer
Forced to sell, new real estate boom in LA, guess who benefits.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I would hazard they are certain they can make the laws say whatever they want them to. Much the way taking someone's property to let developers have it was ruled a valid application of eminent domain. http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu...
All they have to do is compile a list of buildings that the City deems to be unsafe, and the owners will be sufficiently encouraged to make the upgrades (or lose their present tenants.) No subsidies, no tax breaks, no cost to the city.
Ah yes, the magic of the free market. There's absolutely no cost associated with moving, and there is a ready supply of housing that offers everything that the unsafe housing does, minus the lack of earthquake readiness.
Folks: the U.S. government (or any part thereof) can't just march in and force property owners to change their property. Government has to compensate the owners for any taking of a property-owner's rights. If the City of L.A. wants to march in and say "you don't get to use your office building because it isn't earthquake-proof", then the City has to buy the property at fair market value.
Yes, because enforcing building codes constitutes a "taking". I'm sure you absolutely wouldn't do something like blame the government if buildings collapse in an earthquake due to lax building codes or lax enforcement.
The really sad part isn't that you actually believe this, it's that you're not the only one.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
If you think cost is a significant burden, you should try the burden of your entire house falling on top of you and pinning you to the ground in an earthquake.
10 tons of rubble is a real significant burden. Who's going to pay for cleaning up all that after the fact, when the owner of the property is crushed to death under their house?
All they have to do is compile a list of buildings that the City deems to be unsafe, and the owners will be sufficiently encouraged to make the upgrades (or lose their present tenants.) No subsidies, no tax breaks, no cost to the city.
Hahahaha, yeah right. I can't say I'd be happy about having to do these retrofits as a property owner, but if you think just telling people what might be good to do with no incentives or threats to back it I have some oceanfront Nebraska property you might like. Face it, it's a catch 22. Do nothing: Tens of thousands or more may die. This will be an economic disaster for the city for decades. Force people to spend the money and you are the bad guy as well.
Major earthquakes have been expected in that area almost since the first settlers arrived.
I'd like to know the names of the building inspectors that collected millions of dollars in building fees who allowed these now unacceptable structures to be built.
What is the date they will be fired, have their pensions revoked, or have civil charges brought against them?
I know. They're government bureaucrats. It just felt good to type that.
...to deal with all of the suddenly abandoned properties whose owners decide the cost of retrofitting the building costs more than the building is worth and just walk away from them?
A lot of houses in california have a garage on the bottom floor, and a house on top.
this means the bottom floor of TONS of houses, are basically entirely open space, and the house is held up on stilts.
It's been discovered that this particular design is highly susceptible to collapsing in an earthquake, because the house lacks a bunch of load bearing walls at ground level to tie the whole house together.
These retrofits are designed to keep the buildings from completely falling apart and collapsing in a major earthquake. They are not designed to "survive all earthquakes."
Only facile idiots like you think this is designed to protect against all earthquakes. Nobody in the seismic industry would ever make such a claim for any construction. Only you are saying people are making such claims.
When the next big one hits, These retrofits will save thousands, possibly tens of thousands of lives, when houses don't completely collapse, allowing people to leave the building.
That IS a win. That is successful. You are just being a jackass.
You had me until you said "Office Building"
Forcing residential homeowners to make these retrofits is one thing... it's wrong. The homeowner should be able to make the choice of if they want to risk it. The city could instead, inform future buyers with ratings... "Safe to magnitude 3" or whatever. Then require inspections prior to sale, so the new owners would know. Telling some familly that might be barely making their mortgage payments as is, that they have to sink $10k into their house within 5yrs is just elitist and going to drive lower income families out of the city.
But public spaces like an office building? The city has jurisdiction there. The public has some expectation of safety when they walk into a public space. When I go to that new mall downtown, I can't be expected to know that it's actually a retrofitted 1920's flophouse held together with bubblegum. A 5yr plan is still ridiculously short however. It's clear this guys getting some sort of kickback from the construction industry.
More libertarian looniness. Buildings are condemned all the time for being unsafe.
Ah, the good old 'free market' will solve everything. Because of course all the businesses and people in the thousands of buildings can just move, no problem. Right?
And of course the city has no stake in this, because it's not like a building collapse puts any strain on services, right?
And, naturally, the only people that should be concerned are the tenants of the buildings. I mean, of course a building will require and passers-by to sign a contract before falling on them, right?
I hear Bakersfield has lots of avaiable occupancy. Go there! Go there! Go there!
San Francisco already did this. Almost all the masonry buildings in SF have been reinforced since the 1989 quake, and now the rules are being tighened on wood buldings. If you've been in an older building in SF, you've probably seen huge diagonal steel braces. That's what it looks like.
All new big buildings meet very tough earthquake standards. The bridges and freeways have been beefed up in recent years. Overpass pillars are about three times as big as they used to be. Two elevated freeways were torn down after one in Oakland failed in the 1989 quake. The entire eastern span of the Bay Bridge was replaced with a new suspension bridge. The western span was strengthened, and there are now sliding joints, huge plates of stainless steel, between the roadway and the towers.
His homeowner's insurance will pay for it. And if, as a rational actor, he decides he'd rather live in a non-retrofitted house, that should be his decision to make (although he should be required to disclose that fact to a potential buyer if he decides to sell).
So, 'Genius', what exactly is the fair market value of an unsafe structure, not property of course, never property, as the land is not in question, just the structure itself. Which had an originally engineered designed life, which the structures have already gone well past, taking into account 'Tax Depreciation Laws', which allows investors to depreciate the value of the structure over it's designed life. Often properties (structure and land) will be dumped by developers on slum landlords when the structures have past the engineered designed life because that is more profitable than demolishing them and rebuilding a new structure with it new engineered design life. Slum landlords will of course sit on them, avoid all maintenance costs, insure the crap out of them and hope they fall down in an earthquake or go up in flames (when it comes to the residence, meh, as long as the paid their rent right up to the very second they died).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
An awful lot of those residences are going to be rental properties housing those low-income people you are worried about.
As for owner-occupied homes, I can see your point. However, what happens when there is an earthquake? Should the owners who decided not to upgrade be put at the bottom of the priority list for rescue services? Should the owner be eligible for financial aid?
What do you think the fair market value of a condemned building is? Land value minus tear down cost?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No no, do it at the state level!
This building is known to the state of California to cause...
Alright, Mayor Garcetti! Way to use some good old-fashioned fear mongering to scare the crap out of innocent people using completely made-up numbers!
Meanwhile, in a completely unrelated story, the entire construction industry has suddenly ground to a stop and millions of construction workers are out of work. The costs associated with complying with the strictest building codes in California's history have made it too expensive for anyone to build anything.
In addition to the number of new housing starts and new building starts suddenly dropping to zero, property owners also realize the only legal way to avoid California's latest attempt at communism is to avoid performing any repairs or renovations on existing buildings. As buildings slowly become uninhabitable, property owners will simply abandon them. That business model will keep them in the black temporarily, while complying with the new building codes will not.
As the number of habitable buildings declines, the supply of rentals will also decline but the demand will remain the same. This, fellow students of Econ 101, will result in skyrocketing rents which will cause a steady procession of Californians and illegal immigrants out of the state.
As people continue to leave, there will be fewer and fewer customers for all the state's businesses. The economy will slow dramatically. People working in lots of different industries will lose their jobs, greatly increasing the demand for food stamps, welfare, and all the other government entitlement programs. Such a big loss of taxpayers, coupled with a dramatic increase in demand for government handouts will hasten California's bankruptcy. Did you think Orange County's bankruptcy was bad? Detroit's? Well, take a seat and make some popcorn. You're about to see the BIG fireworks.
The crashing economy, coupled with the government's inability to make payments or keep its promises of a utopia that rises above capitalism and doesn't need to use money, will change the steady procession into a drag race of people desperate to escape California.
To borrow a question made famous in Seattle a while ago, "Will the last person leaving California please turn off the lights?"
Maybe if the homeowners insurance companies and mortgage companies (lienholders) were also notified which properties are not up to code.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The government has to give the property owner fair compensation if they use eminent domain. Here's a link at the top of the Google search: http://www.eminentdomainlaw.ne...
The fact that they do it through regulation rather than a transfer of title makes no difference.
No, the really sad part is that you don't see that the City isn't enforcing building codes. They're passing new ones, and that is a "taking" of the property owner's rights. The building owners already complied with the law that existed at the time the buildings were built. If the City wants safer buildings, they get to pay for it one way or another.
Hey, I'm not telling you how to fix the problem of unsafe properties. I'm just telling you what won't work (as per the present L.A. government.) Calling a stupid politician stupid doesn't require me to find a better one to replace him...
Telling some familly that might be barely making their mortgage payments as is, that they have to sink $10k into their house within 5yrs is just elitist and going to drive lower income families out of the city.
Win, win!
--Eric Garcetti
You had me until you said "Office Building" Forcing residential homeowners to make these retrofits is one thing... it's wrong.
Uh, not home owners, but owners of rental properties. Whether the conflation of terms is accidental or if you are being deliberately obtuse, only you know.
The homeowner should be able to make the choice of if they want to risk it.
Not homeowner. Renting landlord. The later do not have the freedom to choose whether to keep their rental units safe or not. Do we really need to have a discussion of why?
The city could instead, inform future buyers with ratings... "Safe to magnitude 3" or whatever.
Homeowners, then buyers, as opposed to reality (landlords and renters.) You can frame the problem in any way you want, but that does not necessarily yield a valid argument.
This me-me-me-me-me-owner-buyer-me-me-me-me-NIMBY-BAD-GUBMINT-me-me-me shit really gets old.
I'd rather have a concrete building collapse on me instead of a wooden building
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Buildings are not condemned all the time because of new building codes. They are condemned because the become unsafe under the existing ones.
I didn't say the City didn't have a stake in this. What I said is that its proposed solution (merely changing the building code) won't work. California politicians are infamous for waving magic wands (new laws) that turn out to be worth less than a straw found in a disposable cup in the gutter.
If the City wants to require a building upgrade AND pay for that upgrade, it can do it. If it wants it for free, then up to the Supreme Court we'll go. (If it makes it that far.)
It doesn't matter who owns the building. It only matters (for application of the Fifth Amendment) that the government pay for what it takes. If the government wants to change the rights of a homeowner to use his property, it gets to do that, so long as it pays for what it took.
They sure as fuck can!
They can condemn a building deemed unsafe or unfit or otherwise dangerous and kick you out of it, weather you own it or not. They don't have to pay you a fucking dime for it either. It just means you're a negligent property owner. This isn't a new idea! You find historical examples of this concept as far back as the roman empire!
Having a building that isn't earthquake safe is a perfectly reasonable reason do condemn a piece of property. It's a hazard to you, anyone else who enters, and public service workers that have a mandate to be there (Fire, police, mailman, utility worket, etc) Furthermore in the event of an actual earthquake it's more than likely the taxpayer that will be in part footing the bill for a rebuild. (Even if you abandon your ruined house it still needs to be knocked down/cleaned up. A trashed building is an eyesore and a safety hazard) It's not fair you externalize that cost by neglecting updates.
What is this addled bizarro land libertarian idea that owning a square of land automatically grants you some ability to make it a sovereign nation where you can be your own dictator and ignore laws you find inconvenient. Oh you don't want to pay property tax but I'd bed my life your hand will be outstretched, palm up when the next natural disaster rolls around!
If Doc Lucy says we have to do this, there is no arguing.
These property owners aren't negligent. They're in compliance with the existing building codes. They have property rights, including the right to use their property in ways that were lawful at the time the buildings were constructed. Take away those rights, and the Fifth Amendment says they have to be fairly compensated. The purpose behind that taking is irrelevant.
This is the same bullshit argument used when we talk about reducing copyright. Some argue we CANT reduce copyright because of the monetary value of those rights and the government would have to compensate all IP holders for the loss of value. I find this argument to be ludicrous at best.
Good-bye
Ludicrous you may find it, but it is legally valid. Property rights, once granted, are not easily taken back. (We disposed of the idea of a Monarch that can do so over 200 years ago.)
If the right can be given without compensation, it can be taken away without compensation.
Good-bye
Usual suspects are whining about how UNFAIR it is that all the low cost housing is being demolished and replaced with new housing the former residents can't possibly afford.
Some consider Fair Market Value to be fair compensation, but that does not take into account the cost of relocating. There was a business in Des Plaines, IL, that was sitting on land (their land) the city wanted to give a developer. The city offered the business the value of the land, when it would take ten times that amount for the owner to move it to a new location. Petterson Safety Service was treated very unfairly.
we would not be having these problems if we just got off our collective lazy asses and developed floating cities already like in the final fantasy series
Not to mention the absurdity of believing that tenants won't have to move whether the buildings are upgraded or not. It's likely that at least SOME of them will undergo major structural changes. Entire sections might lose their utilities or even have to be completely gutted.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If the right can be given without compensation, it can be taken away without compensation.
You are WRONG.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Wow, new laws are being passed that impact people in new ways! Stop the presses, there's tyranny afoot!
Let me ask you this: why should everyone else subsidize building owners by footing the clean-up for their collapsed building?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Actually, we've already been through a round of this. After the Northridge quake, they retroactively applied new building codes to commercial buildings and required them to be updated, whether there was any damage to the building from the quake or not, and irrespective of whether new construction was being done. (A lot of times, when new construction is done an inspector will require additional changes to other parts of the site to comply with up to date codes.)
I was working for a property management company a couple of years after the quake and they were trying to argue with the city about it.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
That's a wonderful, rosey, idealistic view from free market fairy LibertyLand(tm) but it's in no way true. Not in theory or in practice. I know you're too far gone to be reasoned with, so here's a summary to educate others:
Any responsible governing body can and will update building codes. If new codes stipulate older buildings be updated for the safety of the general public the following will likely happen:
While they probably won't make you destroy your building or prevent you from living in it (Although they can if it's deemed unsafe) they can render your property effectively unusable in a number of ways.
They can require you make mandatory changes to obtain a building permit for renovation.
They can require you to make changes as a requirement for further connection to public utilities. Gas in particular, as that presents a safety hazard on unsafe properties
They can require you to make changes or yank your permits/whatever to do business. (This renders commercial properties useless)
Invoking the magical incantation of the 5th amendment in no way entitles you to compensation for any of the above. This has been settled by the courts long before you were born. I've seen dozens of misguided cheapskates like yourself try to weasel out of their obligations, and all resort to the same empty platitudes and clueless rhetoric. And they lose. Every time.
They don't. If a property owner is not maintaining a safe building, then all the hypothetical injured parties have a claim in court.
They already deliberately do that.
Where, exactly, does the Fifth Amendment say that? How does a building code change 'take property for public use'? The property is still yours, and the public does not get to use it.
And there certainly has been precedence. NYC passed a law that ALL office buildings over 100 ft tall have a sprinkler system. NYS passed a law that ALL residences that burn fuel have a CO detector.
I think letting the buildings collapse on top of their residents is a much preferable alternative, instead of this mandated socialism.
In fact when this happened during the 1985 earthquake in Mexico people were elated that no retrofitting had taken place and citizens en masse celebrated the >30,000 dead people.
I mean who does this Eric Garcetti guy thinks he is?
Yeah, great question!
What's heavier? A ton of elephant or a ton of hookers and black jack?
"The homeowner should be able to make the choice of if they want to risk it."
A homeowner is exposed to the risks that their neighbors take, and therefore has an interest that those external costs be accounted for..
You make the common mistake of thinking that property is the land or building. It's the rights *associated with* the land or building. When the state takes away the owner's ability to use those rights, then the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. Who gets to use land or improvements thereupon does not matter; the fact that the building doesn't become a public one has zero relevance.
New laws will apply to new buildings or to improvements made to old ones (for permits to issue). There are lots and lots of old structures that remain the same because they haven't been improved. Unless the state wants to compensate the owner, it has no power to force the owner to act. If you look at those new laws in detail, you'll find that they do not impact the present owner's rights to use the property as they were before.
Sorry, your characterization of "taking" is completely wrong. No one is taking anything; this isn't eminent domain.
The difference is, the property owner continues to own their property. In fact their property value may rise slightly (I don't want to oversell this) because of the reinforcement work done.
Governments often subsidize this sort of work, but never to 100% level, and it's usually done through grants or tax relief. And the grant money may be linked to financial need (seniors, the poor, etc.).
You make the common mistake of believing your own bullshit. Yes, in certain cases where there are substantial restrictions applied it can be considered a taking. 'You must remove the house and not rebuild' is a substantial restriction. 'You must add bracing to bring it up to code' is not. This is well established. And even when it is a taking, there are exceptions to the compensation rule for health and safety regulations.
The cases I cited put no more or less of a restriction on property than earthquake proofing does, and they apply to ALL structures, regardless of when they were built or updated.
It will be cheaper to vacate building, demolish them and salvage materials for resale, and sell the real estate taking the write-offs on the losses.
WAY TO GO.
Um, you didn't cite any cases. I think it is you that is believing your own BS...
You have no clue what a right is. Rights exist in the nature of human beings, governments recognize and codify them. Governments cannot give rights because they do not have rights to give. Governments cannot take rights away, but governments can violate rights. Governments can also recognize when a person has sacrificed a right and act accordingly; such as when a person gives up his right to life by committing murder, and the government acts against him.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
And if you have an enemy in the local government, you can find your safe, code-compliant house condemned.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Concrete construction is brittle compared to wood construction. Even reinforced concrete will have chunks fall off. Wood houses have a lot of plaster, fiberglass, and plastic. Your chances of being hit by something that breaks, instead of something that breaks you, are a little better in a wood house.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There seems to be this idea that rather than regulate something, you just need to inform consumers of the risks, and then the free market will sort everything out. It sounds great in theory but doesn't seem to work well in practice. How many times have you seen a sign saying that something "contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm"? Most Californians ignore it and most people would probably ignore this list of "unsafe" buildings too.
...that he has interests in the company that gets the contract?
NY law requiring all dwellings (regardless of when they were built) to have CO detectors.
NYC law requiring all office buildings higher than 100 feet (regardless of when they were built) to have sprinkler systems installed.
The CO detector law requires a $20 battery operated CO detector. (Look under "COSTS".) That is insignificant. What LA wants to do is require supports to be reinforced or replaced which will cost thousands to do.
The Sprinkler system law "requires sprinklers to be installed in accordance with the sprinkler provisions applicable at the time the alteration permit was issued". In other words, property owners who don't alter their properties are exempt.
For these two laws, neither is a "taking" of existing property rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Additionally, Mugler v. Kansas was a Supreme Court case which affirmed that a state can, through its police powers and for the public good, place restrictions on property WITHOUT requiring compensation. In particular, the Court reasoned that a prohibition on the use of property, by valid legislation, for purposes of protecting the health and safety of the community cannot be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for public benefit. Since the legislation did not restrict the owners control, right to dispose, or ability to use for lawful purposes, no taking had occurred.
About three years ago, I put down $25,000 to retrofit my 90 year old wood-frame bungalow. This is in Oakland/Berkeley (northern California, about a km west of the Hayward fault. THis meant supporting the house while digging up the old foundation; pouring a lot of concrete, bolting walls to the foundation, installing plywood shear walls and plywood reinforcing the 3' stemwall. Each house is different - my neighbor's house required very different work.
Earthquake insurance on our house costs about $3000/year, and does not cover very much (big deductable and low limit). Instead of insurance, we put the money into a bank account. After a decade, we could afford the retrofit.
Will our house ride out the big one? Who knows? The retrofit gave us a chance to upgrade a few things (we now have a tiny under-house server closet, as well as a well-wired home). Mainly, it gave us a little bit of peace 'o' mind.
Wrong again. It says that ALL buildings must be in compliance by July 1, 2019. The alteration permit being discussed is the one to install the sprinklers, which must be done. The reason it mentions that at all is because if you wait to do the work you could have even more requirements.
The only thing you have right is that it is not a taking, just like these proposed laws.
But here we're talking about disallowing the owners of buildings to lease/rent their space out because of new regulations/codes, which is the only economical use that can be made for those buildings. The state can't just attach an intent/purpose of serving the public good and escape the takings clause. (Mugler is an old case from 1887, where the owner still had a viable economic use of the property (other than a brewery), and correspondingly it doesn't control for the proposed L.A. ordinance.)
Yes, all buildings must be in compliance "with the sprinkler provisions applicable at the time the alteration permit was issued". So if the permit was issued in 1965, then the 1965 building codes apply until the building is altered (which requires a new permit). That permits continued use of the building as before, and is not a taking.
The best argument you could probably make is that the value of the buildings and the ability to collect rents would be enhanced by the L.A. ordinance, and correspondingly the government wouldn't have "taken" anything. But here were talking about a general ordinance, and L.A. would have to show that that enhancement would be experienced by virtually all the owners.
This will cost us billions of dollars in the private and public sector,
who is this "us" he is talking about?
The taxpayers. It's a clear violation of the "takings" clause of the US Fifth Amendment (long since incorporated against the states and their subdivisions, including the City and County of Los Angeles.) This means, after a bunch of legal wrangling, the courts are very likely to rule that applying such a law against a pre-existing building is a "partial taking" and the government must make the owner whole, i.e. reimburse him for his costs of compliance.
The takings clause:
if the public good is really being served here by improving safety of citizens, why isn't the discussion framed more along these lines?
When it gets to the courts, it will be. Count on it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I love that because its saying that they deserve money for their content. No they get money only if people want to pay them for it. Most dont. Some do.
They can't take your property away for not complying to this new law if you already have permits. You can sit there for the next 50 years and not comply. The problem will begin when you want to do a new installation or make some modifications to the building requiring a permit, requiring you to comply to new codes.
There's still a lot of buildings that do not comply at all to building codes from 20 years ago still standing, still operating. Most of the reason is because of building inspectors with seriously lack of knowledge and absolute laziness giving their holy water blessing to everyone.
He offers a reasonable alternative, although IMHO it isn't complete. There are 2 parts:
1. A label, "Safe to magnitude X"
2. A maximum on yearly rent raises based on that label.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
From Wikipedia:
"There are numerous instances where the US Supreme Court has found that state courts have reasonably concluded that "the health, safety, morals, or general welfare" would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land. And in this context the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld land-use regulations that adversely affected recognized real property interests."
This sounds like a clear case of "safety"...
That's a real good and current example of complacency. They knew they were hedging their bets on those earth-berms and "it happened". I wonder what LA would look like post-exodus. Those that have the means and will to get out will do so, leaving the place to gangs. New Orleans had some gang activity but they dispersed, I think LA will be different, much different, like war-lord different.