Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

[Guest guest]

As in "tearing down" the old towns and building anew with a more vigorous vibrant cities?

The '06 quake destroyed the old beat up post Gold Rush town of wild San Francisco and built the major city it is today.

A similar quake (though the most damage was from the out of control fires, not the quake itself) around here (actually I though I was "far away enough" to NOT have quakes and we just had a 3.2 right here in the Delta!!!) would maybe turn the area into a Katrina ghost town as most people won't support spending Billions to rebuild (both government funds AND private funds). SF may just "die" somewhat.

The SF Bay Area went from wild country in pre-'06 to a bustling metropolis it is today. It actually was a good event in a way. It spurred building and substantial economic growth.

A new one would be devastating like Katrina in a way though there is SEVERE Silicon Valley value that would need and cause substantial rebuilding.

If we "loose" Silicon Valley the U.S. might just loose more of it's standing in the economic world and loose the tech market to another country leaving us with little to rely on for jobs, etc.

Shall we "evacuate" the Bay Area? Should we also evacuate tornado alley, hurricane alley, the Mississippi flood plain, etc.?

The insurance companies are only in it for INSANE amount of profit (high rates, low payouts) whereas the government acts like an insurance company to keep an serious economic area from collapsing which EVERY American should help in by way of taxes. I don't mind being taxed for helping out Louisiana or New York (then can have a disaster and just did 9/11!!) or Mississippi flood plain, etc. People have a right to choose to live where they want to up to a point (like living INSIDE or on the flanks of an active volcano).

Earthquakes are "rare" (1 big one every 10 years or so I think) compared to Hurricanes (yearly bad ones I believe!).

It's life, live with it.

Randy GarrettAntioch, CA USA-----<---{(@

-----Original Message-----From: FAMSecretSociety [mailto:FAMSecretSociety ] On Behalf Of IrelanSent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:20 PMTo: FAMSecretSociety Subject: Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?Will this quake reshape California like the quake in the first 10.5 movie did?God bless, Irelan

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 7:17 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1346 - Release Date: 3/27/2008 10:03 AM

[Guest guest]

As in "tearing down" the old towns and building anew with a more vigorous vibrant cities?

The '06 quake destroyed the old beat up post Gold Rush town of wild San Francisco and built the major city it is today.

A similar quake (though the most damage was from the out of control fires, not the quake itself) around here (actually I though I was "far away enough" to NOT have quakes and we just had a 3.2 right here in the Delta!!!) would maybe turn the area into a Katrina ghost town as most people won't support spending Billions to rebuild (both government funds AND private funds). SF may just "die" somewhat.

The SF Bay Area went from wild country in pre-'06 to a bustling metropolis it is today. It actually was a good event in a way. It spurred building and substantial economic growth.

A new one would be devastating like Katrina in a way though there is SEVERE Silicon Valley value that would need and cause substantial rebuilding.

If we "loose" Silicon Valley the U.S. might just loose more of it's standing in the economic world and loose the tech market to another country leaving us with little to rely on for jobs, etc.

Shall we "evacuate" the Bay Area? Should we also evacuate tornado alley, hurricane alley, the Mississippi flood plain, etc.?

The insurance companies are only in it for INSANE amount of profit (high rates, low payouts) whereas the government acts like an insurance company to keep an serious economic area from collapsing which EVERY American should help in by way of taxes. I don't mind being taxed for helping out Louisiana or New York (then can have a disaster and just did 9/11!!) or Mississippi flood plain, etc. People have a right to choose to live where they want to up to a point (like living INSIDE or on the flanks of an active volcano).

Earthquakes are "rare" (1 big one every 10 years or so I think) compared to Hurricanes (yearly bad ones I believe!).

It's life, live with it.

Randy GarrettAntioch, CA USA-----<---{(@

-----Original Message-----From: FAMSecretSociety [mailto:FAMSecretSociety ] On Behalf Of IrelanSent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:20 PMTo: FAMSecretSociety Subject: Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?Will this quake reshape California like the quake in the first 10.5 movie did?God bless, Irelan

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 7:17 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1346 - Release Date: 3/27/2008 10:03 AM

[Guest guest]

Actually living in the Bay Area all my life 80% of the damage was from an uncontrolled fire that destroyed many buildings.

Santa (my home town) was mostly leveled by the quake, not San Francisco. SF was very old Gold Rush wood and brick buildings and the fire department was screwed up and actually accelerated the fire.

And, oh yea, they did cover up the damage (can't do that as well these days), there are suspicions that the death toll was far, far worse than reported.

You have to "lie" to attract business, people, and support in rebuilding otherwise the area would be devastated and would be kind of a "wasteland". It's in a way the fault of the people to rebuild in a devastated area that they force the government to LIE so severely. Only history can begin to tell the truth. Tell the truth now and rebuilding fails.

Thought I REALLY hate the thought of the moronic scheming corrupt government covering up what really happened!

MUCH expensive work is being done to have buildings and bridges rebuild to withstand a quake (we're getting a "new" Bay Bridge in the retrofit). Damage cannot be controlled in a disaster, aid needs to happen to save lives and rebuild an area to keep people employed and housed, and insurance companies area a bunch of CRAP.

People saying "I won't pay for someone else to recover from a disaster", etc. really gets my blood boiling.

Katrinaville is a wreck because few will pay for or support aid for them to rebuild and the REST of the country is paying as in the Bay Area we have a LOT of Katrina refuges sucking up what few services we have due to years of cutbacks.

Aaarrrggh! (whoops, I got emotional!) ;-)

Randy GarrettAntioch, CA USA-----<---{(@

-----Original Message-----From: FAMSecretSociety [mailto:FAMSecretSociety ] On Behalf Of VISIGOTH@...Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:24 PMTo: FAMSecretSociety Subject: Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

Not that dramatically. What it will do is flatten a lot of San Francisco. If you look back at the 1906 earthquake or whenever it was, much of the city was destroyed. It was so bad that the city elites had the pictures were taken retouched to cover up the full extent of the damage so they could draw more suckers in to build again. It won't be as fantastic as the movie, but it will be plenty terrible.

Will this quake reshape California like the quake in the first 10.5 movie did?God bless, Irelan

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 7:17 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1346 - Release Date: 3/27/2008 10:03 AM

[Guest guest]

Actually living in the Bay Area all my life 80% of the damage was from an uncontrolled fire that destroyed many buildings.

Santa (my home town) was mostly leveled by the quake, not San Francisco. SF was very old Gold Rush wood and brick buildings and the fire department was screwed up and actually accelerated the fire.

And, oh yea, they did cover up the damage (can't do that as well these days), there are suspicions that the death toll was far, far worse than reported.

You have to "lie" to attract business, people, and support in rebuilding otherwise the area would be devastated and would be kind of a "wasteland". It's in a way the fault of the people to rebuild in a devastated area that they force the government to LIE so severely. Only history can begin to tell the truth. Tell the truth now and rebuilding fails.

Thought I REALLY hate the thought of the moronic scheming corrupt government covering up what really happened!

MUCH expensive work is being done to have buildings and bridges rebuild to withstand a quake (we're getting a "new" Bay Bridge in the retrofit). Damage cannot be controlled in a disaster, aid needs to happen to save lives and rebuild an area to keep people employed and housed, and insurance companies area a bunch of CRAP.

People saying "I won't pay for someone else to recover from a disaster", etc. really gets my blood boiling.

Katrinaville is a wreck because few will pay for or support aid for them to rebuild and the REST of the country is paying as in the Bay Area we have a LOT of Katrina refuges sucking up what few services we have due to years of cutbacks.

Aaarrrggh! (whoops, I got emotional!) ;-)

Randy GarrettAntioch, CA USA-----<---{(@

-----Original Message-----From: FAMSecretSociety [mailto:FAMSecretSociety ] On Behalf Of VISIGOTH@...Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:24 PMTo: FAMSecretSociety Subject: Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

Not that dramatically. What it will do is flatten a lot of San Francisco. If you look back at the 1906 earthquake or whenever it was, much of the city was destroyed. It was so bad that the city elites had the pictures were taken retouched to cover up the full extent of the damage so they could draw more suckers in to build again. It won't be as fantastic as the movie, but it will be plenty terrible.

Will this quake reshape California like the quake in the first 10.5 movie did?God bless, Irelan

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 7:17 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1346 - Release Date: 3/27/2008 10:03 AM

[Guest guest]

Who will pay for buying up the areas that should not have been built on?

There is less money for parks and open space these days.

The SF Bay Area is not so badly built (though they need to address houses on

the former waterfronts which then quicksand in a quake). The Russian River

did and most housing in that area was vacation homes, not normal residences

but now they are and it's bad.

But try to find a place that is affordable to live in around here is a

nightmare. But the jobs and hope for jobs are here.

There are tons of people in this world and all need a place to live and it's

too easy to say " live somewhere else " to the point of an infinite loop:

Move from Russian River to Central Valley (a less disaster prone area) and

then they say that the water needs (and A/C needs) they should move yet

again to another place, then those persons become unemployed or unemployed

because of the lack of jobs in the next area, and they say to move yet

again.

Fault can be found in living in ANY area. Though I dream of a much better

place, there is a hidden problem:

If I move to Corvallis, OR (I don't think it floods much there despite the

river, I don't know) (I don't EVER have the money so it's just an example)

to work for the ONE company there that would hire me and then they go out of

business I would be unemployed again.

Here in the Bay Area I have a HUGE choice of employers and educational

institutes with good reputations to improve my chances tremendously whereas

a degree in Computer Science from the university in Corvallis is nearly

" worthless " compared to one from Stanford / Berkeley.

There is not really groovy place that is truly Eden like where disasters are

few, jobs plenty, infrastructure is great, life is good. Just isn't there.

Some (on the bottom line) are a bit better but not by much (less than 10%).

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

I agree with everything you have said here.

Near where I live, the local river flooded out a bunch of homes and

they had to be demolished. The land the houses were on and the road

that led to the houses were bought with Federal dollars and given to

the local forest preserve district, which took up the road and

planted trees, surprisingly enough.

But the home owners were upset about it. A few were insured, but

most were not, and they naturally whined when they did not get what

they called " fair market value " for these sopping wet, moldy houses

located beside a river which flooded on average once every ten

years.

So you can imagine what will happen in San Francisco when entire

hillsides slide into the water and what remains is good for

matchsticks.

Administrator

They know that they live with this fault and the potential for the

big quake. If they aren't insured, too flaming bad. The city falls

apart, the government should just let it lie in ruins until people

buy up the land dirt cheap and rebuild on it. But of course, if it

happens, the government will stab the taxpayer in the back, again,

and bail them out too.

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this

e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

Our website is here:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/FAM_Secret_Society.html

and you may add to it on this page:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/Main6.html

[Guest guest]

Who will pay for buying up the areas that should not have been built on?

There is less money for parks and open space these days.

The SF Bay Area is not so badly built (though they need to address houses on

the former waterfronts which then quicksand in a quake). The Russian River

did and most housing in that area was vacation homes, not normal residences

but now they are and it's bad.

But try to find a place that is affordable to live in around here is a

nightmare. But the jobs and hope for jobs are here.

There are tons of people in this world and all need a place to live and it's

too easy to say " live somewhere else " to the point of an infinite loop:

Move from Russian River to Central Valley (a less disaster prone area) and

then they say that the water needs (and A/C needs) they should move yet

again to another place, then those persons become unemployed or unemployed

because of the lack of jobs in the next area, and they say to move yet

again.

Fault can be found in living in ANY area. Though I dream of a much better

place, there is a hidden problem:

If I move to Corvallis, OR (I don't think it floods much there despite the

river, I don't know) (I don't EVER have the money so it's just an example)

to work for the ONE company there that would hire me and then they go out of

business I would be unemployed again.

Here in the Bay Area I have a HUGE choice of employers and educational

institutes with good reputations to improve my chances tremendously whereas

a degree in Computer Science from the university in Corvallis is nearly

" worthless " compared to one from Stanford / Berkeley.

There is not really groovy place that is truly Eden like where disasters are

few, jobs plenty, infrastructure is great, life is good. Just isn't there.

Some (on the bottom line) are a bit better but not by much (less than 10%).

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

I agree with everything you have said here.

Near where I live, the local river flooded out a bunch of homes and

they had to be demolished. The land the houses were on and the road

that led to the houses were bought with Federal dollars and given to

the local forest preserve district, which took up the road and

planted trees, surprisingly enough.

But the home owners were upset about it. A few were insured, but

most were not, and they naturally whined when they did not get what

they called " fair market value " for these sopping wet, moldy houses

located beside a river which flooded on average once every ten

years.

So you can imagine what will happen in San Francisco when entire

hillsides slide into the water and what remains is good for

matchsticks.

Administrator

They know that they live with this fault and the potential for the

big quake. If they aren't insured, too flaming bad. The city falls

apart, the government should just let it lie in ruins until people

buy up the land dirt cheap and rebuild on it. But of course, if it

happens, the government will stab the taxpayer in the back, again,

and bail them out too.

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this

e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

Our website is here:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/FAM_Secret_Society.html

and you may add to it on this page:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/Main6.html

[Guest guest]

Actually geologically it is not a " Split " but a movement southward. The

Baja was next to the landmass and " a part of it " East of Los Angeles

hundreds of thousands of years ago.

In the '06 quake San Francisco moved " 6 feet south " along the rest of

California (these are not exact figures BTW). It takes hundreds of

thousands of years to see any serious geological differences.

No " I remember when SF was West of Oakland, now it's in Hollister! " . It's

such a funny thought. If anyone had Geology they would know what I was

talking about.

I would hardly worry in the lifetime of our decedents of seeing San

Francisco moved towards someplace like San Bernardino (I forgot the name of

the cities EAST of L.A.). That would occur in something like 50 to 100

thousand years from now!

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

" Will this quake reshape California like the quake in the first 10.5

movie did? "

Probably not. It is the San s fault that may do that. If you

take a look Mexico, you will see that the part that is called Baja

California looks like it is splitting off from the entire continent.

The San s runs right into that split, and it is believed to

have caused the split. The split is anticipated to run straight up

into the US over the slow course of geologic time (millions of

years).

Administrator

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this

e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

Our website is here:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/FAM_Secret_Society.html

and you may add to it on this page:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/Main6.html

[Guest guest]

Actually geologically it is not a " Split " but a movement southward. The

Baja was next to the landmass and " a part of it " East of Los Angeles

hundreds of thousands of years ago.

In the '06 quake San Francisco moved " 6 feet south " along the rest of

California (these are not exact figures BTW). It takes hundreds of

thousands of years to see any serious geological differences.

No " I remember when SF was West of Oakland, now it's in Hollister! " . It's

such a funny thought. If anyone had Geology they would know what I was

talking about.

I would hardly worry in the lifetime of our decedents of seeing San

Francisco moved towards someplace like San Bernardino (I forgot the name of

the cities EAST of L.A.). That would occur in something like 50 to 100

thousand years from now!

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

" Will this quake reshape California like the quake in the first 10.5

movie did? "

Probably not. It is the San s fault that may do that. If you

take a look Mexico, you will see that the part that is called Baja

California looks like it is splitting off from the entire continent.

The San s runs right into that split, and it is believed to

have caused the split. The split is anticipated to run straight up

into the US over the slow course of geologic time (millions of

years).

Administrator

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this

e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

Our website is here:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/FAM_Secret_Society.html

and you may add to it on this page:

http://www.geocities.com/environmental1st2003/Main6.html

[Guest guest]

How the (bleep) can anyone compare downtown, etc. of San Francisco to a river flooding area?

Is everyone forgetting how CITIES get blown of the map EVERY year in the Midwest?????

SF is not build on a geologically or other really bad area, along a certain river in Colorado, yes (I saw locations that were towns along the railroad that were wiped out in floods).

Even the Russian River <area> cannot be banned from building. Disasters happen AT RANDOM. Blaming the victim is so ridiculous!

It's not like the "Franciscans" build right on a "crumbling fault crevasse".

So you NEVER have any disasters in your area? Ever? No blizzards, no floods, no hurricanes, no quakes (yes, outside of CA)? Can your area support MILLIONS of people moving there? They would all say "go away!".

I'm going to think about what the risks are of living through a quake in or near SF and what the consequences would be (outside of being better than living in Nebraska without a job!!!!).

Randy GarrettAntioch, CA USA-----<---{(@

-----Original Message-----From: FAMSecretSociety [mailto:FAMSecretSociety ] On Behalf Of VISIGOTH@...Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:30 PMTo: FAMSecretSociety Subject: Re: Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

The problem was that for decades, the government DID bail those people out and paid for them to rebuild in exactly the same spot over and over again. In the last 15 years or so there have been changes so that if you live in a particularly dangerous place, the government won't bail you out. However, I'm sure that only applies to a few country folk and not big politically important cities like San Fran.

That they planted trees should be no surprise. That is a good thing actually. What the trees do is to add stability to the ground and also to reduce the force of flood water as it passes around them. The result there is less erosion when floods happen and less damage beyond the trees because the water has less energy in it. True, some trees will be washed away, but that's not a big deal. If the levees had been built further back than they were and a belt of trees planted between the river and the levees, fewer of them would probably break because they could be built on slightly higher ground and the trees would take some of the energy out of the water. But then that would probably be undone when the river reached cities and was choked down into narrow runs, which would accelerate the water and add energy back into it.

In a message dated 3/25/2008 9:24:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I agree with everything you have said here. Near where I live, the local river flooded out a bunch of homes and they had to be demolished. The land the houses were on and the road that led to the houses were bought with Federal dollars and given to the local forest preserve district, which took up the road and planted trees, surprisingly enough. But the home owners were upset about it. A few were insured, but most were not, and they naturally whined when they did not get what they called "fair market value" for these sopping wet, moldy houses located beside a river which flooded on average once every ten years. So you can imagine what will happen in San Francisco when entire hillsides slide into the water and what remains is good for matchsticks. Administrator

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 7:17 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1346 - Release Date: 3/27/2008 10:03 AM

[Guest guest]

How the (bleep) can anyone compare downtown, etc. of San Francisco to a river flooding area?

Is everyone forgetting how CITIES get blown of the map EVERY year in the Midwest?????

SF is not build on a geologically or other really bad area, along a certain river in Colorado, yes (I saw locations that were towns along the railroad that were wiped out in floods).

Even the Russian River <area> cannot be banned from building. Disasters happen AT RANDOM. Blaming the victim is so ridiculous!

It's not like the "Franciscans" build right on a "crumbling fault crevasse".

So you NEVER have any disasters in your area? Ever? No blizzards, no floods, no hurricanes, no quakes (yes, outside of CA)? Can your area support MILLIONS of people moving there? They would all say "go away!".

I'm going to think about what the risks are of living through a quake in or near SF and what the consequences would be (outside of being better than living in Nebraska without a job!!!!).

Randy GarrettAntioch, CA USA-----<---{(@

-----Original Message-----From: FAMSecretSociety [mailto:FAMSecretSociety ] On Behalf Of VISIGOTH@...Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:30 PMTo: FAMSecretSociety Subject: Re: Re: The Hayward Fault: America's Most Dangerous?

The problem was that for decades, the government DID bail those people out and paid for them to rebuild in exactly the same spot over and over again. In the last 15 years or so there have been changes so that if you live in a particularly dangerous place, the government won't bail you out. However, I'm sure that only applies to a few country folk and not big politically important cities like San Fran.

That they planted trees should be no surprise. That is a good thing actually. What the trees do is to add stability to the ground and also to reduce the force of flood water as it passes around them. The result there is less erosion when floods happen and less damage beyond the trees because the water has less energy in it. True, some trees will be washed away, but that's not a big deal. If the levees had been built further back than they were and a belt of trees planted between the river and the levees, fewer of them would probably break because they could be built on slightly higher ground and the trees would take some of the energy out of the water. But then that would probably be undone when the river reached cities and was choked down into narrow runs, which would accelerate the water and add energy back into it.

In a message dated 3/25/2008 9:24:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I agree with everything you have said here. Near where I live, the local river flooded out a bunch of homes and they had to be demolished. The land the houses were on and the road that led to the houses were bought with Federal dollars and given to the local forest preserve district, which took up the road and planted trees, surprisingly enough. But the home owners were upset about it. A few were insured, but most were not, and they naturally whined when they did not get what they called "fair market value" for these sopping wet, moldy houses located beside a river which flooded on average once every ten years. So you can imagine what will happen in San Francisco when entire hillsides slide into the water and what remains is good for matchsticks. Administrator

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG.Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 3/25/2008 7:17 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1346 - Release Date: 3/27/2008 10:03 AM

[Guest guest]

Let me clear up a couple of things.

Yes, most places do have various threats to them. Most people have insurance the cover them. If they don't, there is often a government insurance policy that they can buy. Also in those places the government can and does buy people out or tells them that they don't qualify because of the particular location of their house (too close to the coastline, in a low lying area that frequently floods, etc.).

Where I live we are subject to hurricanes and tornadoes. My house is privately insured against both. In addition, I have spent thousands of dollars cutting down dangerous trees from my yard that threatened my house and those of my next door neighbors. Personally, I would like to cut down even more and replant with trees that won't grow nearly as tall and thick as what is there now, but I don't have the money.

San Francisco has its known threat which is earthquakes and a potentially very powerful one. People should therefore get insurance to cover it. If they can't get private insurance, then if there is a government policy they should take it. If not, then if their property is destroyed or damaged, they don't merit a special bailout any more than someone who builds right on the coastline in a hurricane zone that didn't have insurance.

You do raise a good point though about the rising property values in San Francisco. In most parts of the country, the value of the structure is the greater part of a property's value compared to the land, when talking about residential size lots. Here, the land value is about 1/5th the value of the house. In San Francisco and some other cities, it is the opposite. Those million dollar tiny homes are so expensive because of the value of the land, not the structure itself.

So, therein lies the solution to the insurance problem. The insurance companies should only cover the repair and replacement cost of the structure, exclusive of the value of the land. So, if they have a million dollar property but the structure is only valued at $200,000, then that alone is what should be covered. If that policy were applied across the area, then the companies would have a much easier time offering coverage. It would also make a government bailout, at partial cost of the structure not full cost, much less onerous.

I also agree with you that the cover up after the 1906 quake and fire was terrible. It was done purely out of greed. Had the truth been told, there would still be a San Francisco, just perhaps one not so big. People might also be better informed about the earthquake potential and they could chose for themselves whether to stay or leave or carrying insurance.

My main point is that I maintain insurance on this place and the historic property in south Alabama (not easy because no one currently lives on site and the companies do not like covering that and in this case, there is no federal plan even though all of the structures are on the historic register, including one of the oldest if not the oldest still standing country store in the state.). It isn't cheap but it needs to be done.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the property value question. Some of my cousins in Northern Virginia are feeling that squeeze. As the cancer of Washington DC's urban sprawl marches ever southward, property values have shot up along with the tax burden. That tax has increased by 500% over the last few years for many people in the area. The politicians are trying very hard to push families off land that they have lived on for centuries to make way for a new beltway and more development. Many have already fallen. Its the same in San Francisco. The property values are shooting up with no basis in reality, just political machinations and greed. Because of that, people have to cut corners to pay the real estate taxes. If the land values were more reasonable, they would be able to afford insurance, insurance that would be offered because the potential payouts would not bankrupt the company.

Lastly I'll say I know about the Katrina situation. New Orleans got all the attention, but a wide area was also damaged. There was damage as far east as Alabama. Mobile was flooded and a bridge was damaged when a small oil rig broke loose and was pushed up river into it. Hurricane Ivan made a direct hit the year before and did tremendous damage throughout south Alabama. My place there was damaged too. It took a lot of fighting with the insurance companies to restore those buildings properly. even then the timber market has been depressed because of the all the timber that was blown down and it had not recovered by the time the housing slowdown arrived.

My point here is that the New Orleans situation was caused purely be stupidity and corruption. 40 years ago, those wards that Katrina flooded were under 8 to 10 feet of water. Levees were built, the land drained and cheap housing built. It was a disaster waiting to happen and it never should have been approved. That housing should have been built a few miles away on higher ground where it was safer and the whole situation would have been avoided. It is absolute madness to rebuild on the same ground and not expect the same to happen again in future. That land should simply have been condemned and a new project built on higher ground and that old placed cleared and returned to swampland. That won't happen for political reason, though and the stage is set for another disaster. It is interesting like you say that crime rates sparked in cities where the refugees went and the demand for services shot up. That should not be surprising either given the corrupt nature of New Orleans, its less than 50% resolution of murders and even lower for other crimes and where prisoners were often turned out on the street again rather than bother with paying to keep them in jail (or more likely the jailers pocketed the money meant to inmates who weren't being actually housed.). Louisiana and New Orleans are some of the most corrupt places in the US. I myself had family who had lived there for a long time, but they used Katrina as an excuse to move on to a better location.

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

[Guest guest]

" Even the Russian River <area> cannot be banned from building.

Disasters happen AT RANDOM. Blaming the victim is so ridiculous! "

I think it depends on the situation. Raven's dowtown area was flooded

out twice in three years when the " Flood of the Century " hit. (The

second was worse than the first.) Both fllods were unforseen and not

seen before in living memory.l No one can be blamed for building near

that river. But when people build and live near a river that is known

to flood every ten years, I find it hard to bite my tongue when my

tax dollars go to bail them out.

Knowing what we know now about fault lines in California, and on the

New Madrid fault in Missouri, I think any building that gets wiped

out ought to be either replaced with a park, or else an earthquake

resistant structure that will resist the damage of lesser

earthquakes.

It is unreasonable to expect ANY structure with withstand a massive

quake, but massive quakes do not come very often, and most structures

are only built to last between fifty and a hundred years anyway.

Administrator