Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

LA Mayor Proposes Earthquake Retrofits On Thousands of Buildings 178

Posted by samzenpus from the whole-lot-of-shaking-going-on dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LA Mayor Proposes Earthquake Retrofits On Thousands of Buildings More

LA Mayor Proposes Earthquake Retrofits On Thousands of Buildings

Comments Filter:

  • Beloved by Builders and Developers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarkvW ( 1037596 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:19PM (#48566953)

    Garcetti will have the undying love and money of builders and developers for years to come.

    • That was my thought. Watch LA's construction boom like the dot.bomb era.

  • the mysterious "us" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Connie_Lingus ( 317691 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:25PM (#48567021) Homepage

    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?

    • Re:the mysterious "us" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:34PM (#48567121)

      if the public good is really being served here by improving safety of citizens, why isn't the discussion framed more along these lines?

      I'm guessing because California has been in the news a lot lately for serious financial issues. The knee-jerk reaction is criticize LA for even more wasteful spending, and why not.. it's fun. La la land is silly, right? Normally yes, but the problem is that they're unaware that this was motivated by *two* significant earthquakes this year, signaling the end of a decade-long low cycle. They're actually doing a good thing, here.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AaronW ( 33736 )

        Financially California has been in pretty good shape the last few years. The state is running a surplus. As for the fleeing businesses, there are far more businesses starting in California than are "fleeing".

    • if the public good is really being served here by improving safety of citizens, why isn't the discussion framed more along these lines?

      Because property owners have a really good lobby and are very active in local politics.
      They donate lots of money and generate lots of property taxes.

      The mayor can't afford to piss them off, so the end result will be State subsidies for safety costs that would otherwise exclusively belong to the owners.

    • Re:the mysterious "us" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:55PM (#48567335)

      Shocking: building owners are supposed to pay others to maintain their buildings. What's the current world coming to? Wealthy owners should be able to have their work done for free, so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money.

      The reason that the discussion isn't framed more to be about the safety of citizens is because it's assumed that people understand to have buildings not collapse in an earthquake is a generally good thing for everyone. Do you really have to have a discussion about how not having buildings collapse onto people inside them is a good thing or a bad thing? We even have some pretty good numbers of the costs associated with earthquakes, as they happen frequently enough in plenty of developed and undeveloped areas.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by digsbo ( 1292334 )
        Seems like a place where insurance costs could provide help. Lower insurance liability costs and premiums for upgraded buildings. No?

        • Natural disasters are usually excluded.
          The gains are directly for the home owners. If they don't upgrade an earthquake would cause more cost because they'd have to pay for the rebuild cost.

          That is, if the government doesn't step in and pay for it because the poor home owners can't because they have just lost everything due to an earthquake.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by digsbo ( 1292334 )

            Natural disasters are usually excluded.

            Well, that seems like a calculable risk that shouldn't be excluded. I mean, there's flood insurance for people in flood zones. Why not earthquake insurance for people in earthquake zones? Wildfire insurance for the same, etc., etc.?

      • The reason that the discussion isn't framed more to be about the safety of citizens is because it's assumed that people understand to have buildings not collapse in an earthquake is a generally good thing for everyone. Do you really have to have a discussion about how not having buildings collapse onto people inside them is a good thing or a bad thing? We even have some pretty good numbers of the costs associated with earthquakes, as they happen frequently enough in plenty of developed and undeveloped areas.

        Isn't this a usual risk-cost calculation? Every building can decide whether the risk (probability times loss) is greater then the costs of avoiding the risk.

        • Re:the mysterious "us" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @05:32PM (#48568199)

          Buildings don't decide anything, building owners do. The problem is that without building codes, building owners are incentivized to not make buildings earthquake safe: no one short of a civil engineer doing a tear-down analysis can figure out on their own if a building is earthquake-safe, which means that no one does, and everyone rolls the dice. Since earthquakes are rare, it's quite possible that the original builder will never be exposed to the results of shoddy building practices. However, it is guaranteed that someone will be. So we have a situation where the risk analysis is very difficult if not mandated ahead of time, the event is rare for a particular individual but guaranteed for a population, and the cost up-front for an individual is fairly large. The rational calculation for each individual builder is to not make it earthquake safe, and just claim it is ok. This shifts cost from individual builders onto the population at large.

          Building codes are essentially the general population saying to individual builders "we made our risk-benefit analysis, and we're not going to subsidize you."

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jythie ( 914043 )
          Part of the problem there is that many insurance companies do not think that far ahead, esp the more "budget" ones. Often they do not have the assets to pay out in the case of major disaster, they simply fold instead. So the risk calculations tend to leave out catastrophic cases, even when such cases are technically covered in the plan.

          It also does not help that building owners who go with crappy insurance are at a business advantage over ones that pay for plans from companies that will last, which means

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dala1 ( 1842368 )

            Insurance companies don't fold if there is a major disaster. They have reinsurance to cover extraordinary events.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      And those contractors in turn rent or own space, as do their families and suppliers. Costs like this have a way of cycling around.

    • 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?

      Where do you think these contractors/workers live and work? In buildings where the owners and renters will be forced to pay for these improvements.

      Stop acting like only the rich will pay for it. Everyone will pay for it. Most people won't be able to afford it. If it becomes mandatory people will be forced to move out of the city due to the cost. Everyone will pay.

    • The renters. Do you really think the owners aren't going to pass the costs to the renters?
      Also, I have to wonder how many of those buildings will cost almost or more to do these retrofits than they are worth.
      You have to wonder if it's going to be cheaper to tear it down and build something new.

    • 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

    • 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.

      Who is this us? The not-wealthy lady running a photography studio whose rent just went up to pay for the refits. (And her customers.) And the not-wealthy guy renting an apartment. And the not wealthy family ru

  • Let it happen and blame it on Bush (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:31PM (#48567091)

    Hey, it worked for a city built below sea level in an area prone to strong hurricanes...

    • You should be modded up for insightful
      But you forgot to add "Whose local government did everything it could to screw up preparedness then blamed the man for keeping them down".

      • 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.

    • Hey, hurricanes are made of wind and we all know how GW likes his blow...

  • What me worry? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jamesl ( 106902 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:33PM (#48567111)

    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... [latimes.com]

  • 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

    • 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... [harvard.edu]

    • Re:Another "taking" by the California government.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:46PM (#48567255)

      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.

      • 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.
        • 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.
          • 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.
              • 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.

        • 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?

      • 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"...

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Charliemopps ( 1157495 )

      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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        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?

      • 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-

        • 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.

      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bws111 ( 1216812 )

          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.

          • 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 lot

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by bws111 ( 1216812 )

              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 earthquak

              • Um, you didn't cite any cases. I think it is you that is believing your own BS...

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by bws111 ( 1216812 )

                  NY law [ny.gov] requiring all dwellings (regardless of when they were built) to have CO detectors.

                  NYC law [nyc.gov] 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 propert

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

                      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.

                    • 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.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by bws111 ( 1216812 )

                  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

                  • 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.)
                  • 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.

      • "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..

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      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 pa

      • 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

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      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 structur

      • 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...

    • What do you think the fair market value of a condemned building is? Land value minus tear down cost?

    • No no, do it at the state level!

      This building is known to the state of California to cause...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      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.)

      Maybe if the homeowners insurance companies and mortgage companies (lienholders) were also notified which properties are not up to code.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nytes ( 231372 )

      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 comp

    • 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.

  • I think someone saw... (Score:3)

    by mackil ( 668039 ) <movie@moviesoundc l i p s .net> on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:40PM (#48567173) Homepage Journal
    ... the San Andreas trailer [youtube.com]

  • Forced to sell, new real estate boom in LA, guess who benefits.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by operagost ( 62405 )
      Your insight is lost on the average Slashdotter, who thinks that anyone who owns a building is a rich fat cat. I'm certain that many buildings in LA are owned by smaller investors whose net worth is largely contained within the properties they own.

  • What's the mayors plan... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @03:54PM (#48567319)

    ...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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      This is why permanent structures should have end-of-life insurance.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rinikusu ( 28164 )

      Don't you worry. They'll be sold at auction, gutted, retrofitted, and turned into 600sq ft condos starting at $675k with $500+/month HOA fees (to pay for the retrofitting).

  • San Francisco already did this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @04:15PM (#48567503) Homepage

    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.

  • I'd rather have a concrete building collapse on me instead of a wooden building

    • 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.

  • Why??? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @06:20PM (#48568581) Homepage

    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?

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close