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.
Hey, it worked for a city built below sea level in an area prone to strong hurricanes...
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...
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.
House-airships..
... 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."
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like the free-market solution to reducing major earthquake damage costs is already in effect!
...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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
For the most part these are not buildings where owners live. The decision to endanger other people if you can keep prices low is much easier for them.
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.
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.