3 ms·

The problem of buying in SF is that it is a high-risk earthquake area. If a big earthquake occur, not only you may lose your house, but you STILL have to contin

by mrb 12y ago

The problem of buying in SF is that it is a high-risk earthquake area. If a big earthquake occur, not only you may lose your house, but you STILL have to continue to pay the mortgage... on a house that does not exist anymore. Even if you have earthquake insurance, insurers typically go out of their way to avoid/reduce claims they have to pay (this is exactly what happened to numerous Hurricane Katrina victims: http://rt.com/usa/katrina-state-farm-insurance-fraud-596/ http://rt.com/usa/katrina-state-farm-insurance-fraud-596/ ) On the other hand, if you are renting and your house gets destroyed, you move to a new house and you don't have the financial liabilities a homeowner would have.

aetherson 12y ago
That is not "the problem with buying in SF." Earthquakes big enough to damage houses are very rare, and much of the value of the property is in the land, not the structure.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Earthquakes big enough to damage houses are very rare The 20th Century was "abnormally stable" in SF, and they've got a long history of fairly regular ones. http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25793975/quake-cluster-likely-strike-bay-area-scientist-say http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25793975/quake-cluster... > and much of the value of the property is in the land, not the structure In a normal "selling my house" situation, sure. In a "good portion of the city got leveled" situation, not necessarily.
- mrb 12y ago
  Earthquakes in SF are definitely not rare: "There is a 63% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking somewhere in the San Francisco Bay region in the next 30 years." Source: http://www.earthquakesafety.com/earthquake-faults.html http://www.earthquakesafety.com/earthquake-faults.html And I would say it is not true that most of the value is in the land. Even if it is 50/50 between land/house, losing 50% of your investment when the house is destroyed is still a terrible prospect...

by mrb 12y ago

aetherson 12y ago

That is not "the problem with buying in SF." Earthquakes big enough to damage houses are very rare, and much of the value of the property is in the land, not the structure.

ceejayoz 12y ago
> Earthquakes big enough to damage houses are very rare The 20th Century was "abnormally stable" in SF, and they've got a long history of fairly regular ones. http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25793975/quake-cluster-likely-strike-bay-area-scientist-say http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25793975/quake-cluster... > and much of the value of the property is in the land, not the structure In a normal "selling my house" situation, sure. In a "good portion of the city got leveled" situation, not necessarily.
mrb 12y ago
Earthquakes in SF are definitely not rare: "There is a 63% probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater quake, capable of causing widespread damage, striking somewhere in the San Francisco Bay region in the next 30 years." Source: http://www.earthquakesafety.com/earthquake-faults.html http://www.earthquakesafety.com/earthquake-faults.html And I would say it is not true that most of the value is in the land. Even if it is 50/50 between land/house, losing 50% of your investment when the house is destroyed is still a terrible prospect...