[quote=Eugene]We have fairly stringent building standards, They ensure that even a medium-to-large earthquake (say, up to 7.0) will only cause mild damage. If something above 7.0 happens in a densely populated area, the Feds will have no choice but to help, even if Mrs. Palin is the president.
Some people will choose to pack up and leave the affected area rather than rebuild. Many of them will not leave the state altogether, they’ll just rent apartments near their jobs. For example, San Bernardino and Hemet are two cities prone to being wiped out by an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Neither of the two are major job centers of their own. Rather, they are exurbs similar to Temecula, and lots of their residents commute to OC/LA. What happens when the earthquake hits? They move to OC/LA and drive up prices there.
The affected area will suffer a drop in population. Safe nearby areas will see jumps in population, rents, and real estate prices.
San Diego is the safest densely populated part of the state to be in with regard to earthquakes. I’d expect it to be an overall winner if the big one does occur.[/quote]
Interesting that the last 2 posts promulgate 2 of the most popular myths when it comes to eathquakes. 1)that CA will drop into the ocean and 2)that building standards will keep damage to a minimum. What I just learned is that San Bernadino-Imperial counties have not had a big one in over 300 years and the probability of a big one in our lifetimes is like 97%. San Diego appears to be safe but Temecula not so much, lucky for El Centro I don’t think they have too many tall buildings there.
