On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:15:42 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On 8 Oct 2004 08:07:20 -0700, (Raymond Yeung)
wrote:

Okay, I suppose that's the good news. If the house is totaled, it'd
cost about $120,000 to rebuild?

Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work. If you can wait until the activity dies down to normal levels
and then rebuild, you could probably have your house rebuilt for about
that much. But where would you live in the meantime?

And I suppose such a devastating
event would have little impact to subsequent resale value of the
property? I'd suppose people might be hesitant in buying a land upon
which a house had previously been shaken down.

New people are coming to CA all the time. Even longtime residents have
short memories. If the house is *in* an earthquake zone, you must
disclose that fact,

And the definition of a disclosable earthquke zone is quite
limited; it's called a "seismic studies zone" and it lies only
within a half-mile (?) of a fault trace. It's aimed mostly at
keeping structures from being torn apart by fissuring or lateral
displacement.

but if it's not the buyer need never know that it
was shaken to the ground unless he does his due diligence and pulls
all the past permits on your property.

As a mater of fact, buying a house in an area where significant
earthquake damage has occured can be a sound business strategy.
Suppose there were a major quake on the Newport-Inglewood fault
tomorrow with damage levels comparable to the 1933 event. Real estate
prices would be depressed, but only temporarily. You swoop in and buy
up a great lot with an ocean view in Newport Beach for a bargain price
because the owner wants to bail and move to Florida where they don't
have earthquakes. You clear the debris off the lot and build a brand
new house. Everyone else is rebuilding, too, and in 5 years you can't
tell there was ever an earthquake in the area. Prices rebound and
eventually reach new record highs, so you're sitting pretty.

This is, of course, a definte risk, since there is nothing to
prevent another earthquake from destroying your new house within
some reasonable length of time, which might be as short as next
year. You're playing the odds, and you won't have good enough
insurance to cover your losses.

And large earthqukes do sometime occur closely together; it's now
theorized that quakes are not completely random events, but
rather one may cause another nearby.

The worst US case would be the three New Madrid 8.0 earthquakes
in Missouri over the years 1810 to 1813 (I think it was).

Meanwhile, your risk of being in another quake is drastically reduced,
because all the strain has been taken out of the ground along the N-I
fault; by the time enough strain builds up for another big quake to
occur, you've long since sold at a huge profit.

Except it may set up the for a quake on an adjacent fault. But
it's your money; go for it.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *