4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoEarthquakes 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...