Let’s speculate effect of a massive earthquake on RE and CA economy.

[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.

[moneymaker]

[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.

[moneymaker]

[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.

[moneymaker]

[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.

[moneymaker]

[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.

[moneymaker]

[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.

[pencilneck]

I believe San Diego would withstand a direct major earthquake pretty well. Tijuana would probably not fare so well, but, assuming most of our infrastructure stays intact, the rebuilding there could result in a net positive effect for real estate in the county of San Diego. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this, if that’s the way it comes across.

We are more vulnerable to a major earthquake in the Sacramento region, as this could damage the fragile levee system that provides water to about 2/3’s the state’s population. And a major earthquake is far more likely to occur in the Delta region than in San Diego. This would nearly certainly damage the economy of Southern California, and housing prices, severely for at least a few years.

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2010/07/californias-katrina-levee-failure-in-the-delta.html

[pencilneck]

I believe San Diego would withstand a direct major earthquake pretty well. Tijuana would probably not fare so well, but, assuming most of our infrastructure stays intact, the rebuilding there could result in a net positive effect for real estate in the county of San Diego. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this, if that’s the way it comes across.

We are more vulnerable to a major earthquake in the Sacramento region, as this could damage the fragile levee system that provides water to about 2/3’s the state’s population. And a major earthquake is far more likely to occur in the Delta region than in San Diego. This would nearly certainly damage the economy of Southern California, and housing prices, severely for at least a few years.

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2010/07/californias-katrina-levee-failure-in-the-delta.html

[pencilneck]

I believe San Diego would withstand a direct major earthquake pretty well. Tijuana would probably not fare so well, but, assuming most of our infrastructure stays intact, the rebuilding there could result in a net positive effect for real estate in the county of San Diego. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this, if that’s the way it comes across.

We are more vulnerable to a major earthquake in the Sacramento region, as this could damage the fragile levee system that provides water to about 2/3’s the state’s population. And a major earthquake is far more likely to occur in the Delta region than in San Diego. This would nearly certainly damage the economy of Southern California, and housing prices, severely for at least a few years.

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2010/07/californias-katrina-levee-failure-in-the-delta.html

[pencilneck]

I believe San Diego would withstand a direct major earthquake pretty well. Tijuana would probably not fare so well, but, assuming most of our infrastructure stays intact, the rebuilding there could result in a net positive effect for real estate in the county of San Diego. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this, if that’s the way it comes across.

We are more vulnerable to a major earthquake in the Sacramento region, as this could damage the fragile levee system that provides water to about 2/3’s the state’s population. And a major earthquake is far more likely to occur in the Delta region than in San Diego. This would nearly certainly damage the economy of Southern California, and housing prices, severely for at least a few years.

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2010/07/californias-katrina-levee-failure-in-the-delta.html

[pencilneck]

I believe San Diego would withstand a direct major earthquake pretty well. Tijuana would probably not fare so well, but, assuming most of our infrastructure stays intact, the rebuilding there could result in a net positive effect for real estate in the county of San Diego. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this, if that’s the way it comes across.

We are more vulnerable to a major earthquake in the Sacramento region, as this could damage the fragile levee system that provides water to about 2/3’s the state’s population. And a major earthquake is far more likely to occur in the Delta region than in San Diego. This would nearly certainly damage the economy of Southern California, and housing prices, severely for at least a few years.

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2010/07/californias-katrina-levee-failure-in-the-delta.html

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]If I recall, real estate prices dropped for about a year in the LA area after the Northridge earthquakes. I personally know two families who took advantage to purchase from freaked out people who decided the sunshine was not worth the earth quake risk and moved back to wherever they were from. One was in OC, one was in the Valley. Admittedly, this is anectdotal evidence.

It’s hard to say how much of the home price decline was due to the earthquake – there was a dip in housing prices during the same window for economic reasons. But the persons I know had been looking, and felt it was the time to get a bargain.

http://www.forecast-chart.com/estate-real-los-angeles.html%5B/quote%5D

Yep, the earthquake caused a lot of people to move back to their home states, if not from California. Even native Californians left.

As you said, prices were already going down, but I definitely think the Northridge earthquake caused them to drop further. Even I was starting to look for a home before the earthquake happened, and decided against it after the quake. It took me a few years to get the courage up to buy.

I think it really depends on how large and damaging the earthquake is. What many who’ve never experienced it can’t understand (until you’re in one) is how powerful a large quake is, and how frightening the aftershocks can be if you’re already traumatized by the first one. People were literally thrown from their beds, all of the furniture was knocked down (even some with furniture straps).

At my work, the roof of one of our warehouses collapsed. We often worked 24-hours/day, but had just finished the Christmas rush, so were back to two shifts. If not for that, we would have had multiple casualties. In another warehouse, the walls had separated from the roof, but the structure was still standing (it eventually ended up “red tagged” as well). It started raining a few days later, and it was like Niagara Falls, with water cascading down the interior of all the walls. All the employees were using shop vacs to suck up all the water that was flooding the inventory. Fun days…

IMHO, if there were a large, destructive earthquake in Southern California, prices would drop like a rock. So many people are already not paying and/or underwater, and the market is being 100% supported by the Fed/govt already, a large EQ would throw things over the edge.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]If I recall, real estate prices dropped for about a year in the LA area after the Northridge earthquakes. I personally know two families who took advantage to purchase from freaked out people who decided the sunshine was not worth the earth quake risk and moved back to wherever they were from. One was in OC, one was in the Valley. Admittedly, this is anectdotal evidence.

It’s hard to say how much of the home price decline was due to the earthquake – there was a dip in housing prices during the same window for economic reasons. But the persons I know had been looking, and felt it was the time to get a bargain.

http://www.forecast-chart.com/estate-real-los-angeles.html%5B/quote%5D

Yep, the earthquake caused a lot of people to move back to their home states, if not from California. Even native Californians left.

As you said, prices were already going down, but I definitely think the Northridge earthquake caused them to drop further. Even I was starting to look for a home before the earthquake happened, and decided against it after the quake. It took me a few years to get the courage up to buy.

I think it really depends on how large and damaging the earthquake is. What many who’ve never experienced it can’t understand (until you’re in one) is how powerful a large quake is, and how frightening the aftershocks can be if you’re already traumatized by the first one. People were literally thrown from their beds, all of the furniture was knocked down (even some with furniture straps).

At my work, the roof of one of our warehouses collapsed. We often worked 24-hours/day, but had just finished the Christmas rush, so were back to two shifts. If not for that, we would have had multiple casualties. In another warehouse, the walls had separated from the roof, but the structure was still standing (it eventually ended up “red tagged” as well). It started raining a few days later, and it was like Niagara Falls, with water cascading down the interior of all the walls. All the employees were using shop vacs to suck up all the water that was flooding the inventory. Fun days…

IMHO, if there were a large, destructive earthquake in Southern California, prices would drop like a rock. So many people are already not paying and/or underwater, and the market is being 100% supported by the Fed/govt already, a large EQ would throw things over the edge.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]If I recall, real estate prices dropped for about a year in the LA area after the Northridge earthquakes. I personally know two families who took advantage to purchase from freaked out people who decided the sunshine was not worth the earth quake risk and moved back to wherever they were from. One was in OC, one was in the Valley. Admittedly, this is anectdotal evidence.

It’s hard to say how much of the home price decline was due to the earthquake – there was a dip in housing prices during the same window for economic reasons. But the persons I know had been looking, and felt it was the time to get a bargain.

http://www.forecast-chart.com/estate-real-los-angeles.html%5B/quote%5D

Yep, the earthquake caused a lot of people to move back to their home states, if not from California. Even native Californians left.

As you said, prices were already going down, but I definitely think the Northridge earthquake caused them to drop further. Even I was starting to look for a home before the earthquake happened, and decided against it after the quake. It took me a few years to get the courage up to buy.

I think it really depends on how large and damaging the earthquake is. What many who’ve never experienced it can’t understand (until you’re in one) is how powerful a large quake is, and how frightening the aftershocks can be if you’re already traumatized by the first one. People were literally thrown from their beds, all of the furniture was knocked down (even some with furniture straps).

At my work, the roof of one of our warehouses collapsed. We often worked 24-hours/day, but had just finished the Christmas rush, so were back to two shifts. If not for that, we would have had multiple casualties. In another warehouse, the walls had separated from the roof, but the structure was still standing (it eventually ended up “red tagged” as well). It started raining a few days later, and it was like Niagara Falls, with water cascading down the interior of all the walls. All the employees were using shop vacs to suck up all the water that was flooding the inventory. Fun days…

IMHO, if there were a large, destructive earthquake in Southern California, prices would drop like a rock. So many people are already not paying and/or underwater, and the market is being 100% supported by the Fed/govt already, a large EQ would throw things over the edge.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal]If I recall, real estate prices dropped for about a year in the LA area after the Northridge earthquakes. I personally know two families who took advantage to purchase from freaked out people who decided the sunshine was not worth the earth quake risk and moved back to wherever they were from. One was in OC, one was in the Valley. Admittedly, this is anectdotal evidence.

It’s hard to say how much of the home price decline was due to the earthquake – there was a dip in housing prices during the same window for economic reasons. But the persons I know had been looking, and felt it was the time to get a bargain.

http://www.forecast-chart.com/estate-real-los-angeles.html%5B/quote%5D

Yep, the earthquake caused a lot of people to move back to their home states, if not from California. Even native Californians left.

As you said, prices were already going down, but I definitely think the Northridge earthquake caused them to drop further. Even I was starting to look for a home before the earthquake happened, and decided against it after the quake. It took me a few years to get the courage up to buy.

I think it really depends on how large and damaging the earthquake is. What many who’ve never experienced it can’t understand (until you’re in one) is how powerful a large quake is, and how frightening the aftershocks can be if you’re already traumatized by the first one. People were literally thrown from their beds, all of the furniture was knocked down (even some with furniture straps).

At my work, the roof of one of our warehouses collapsed. We often worked 24-hours/day, but had just finished the Christmas rush, so were back to two shifts. If not for that, we would have had multiple casualties. In another warehouse, the walls had separated from the roof, but the structure was still standing (it eventually ended up “red tagged” as well). It started raining a few days later, and it was like Niagara Falls, with water cascading down the interior of all the walls. All the employees were using shop vacs to suck up all the water that was flooding the inventory. Fun days…

IMHO, if there were a large, destructive earthquake in Southern California, prices would drop like a rock. So many people are already not paying and/or underwater, and the market is being 100% supported by the Fed/govt already, a large EQ would throw things over the edge.

[Author]

Posts