Oregon's Brazenly Stupid Repeal Of Tsunami Zone Building Restriction (Seaside: insurance, credit)

[USDefault]

HB3309 has to be the dumbest piece of legislation the Democrats and the Republicans voted for, and Kate Brown signed. How frighteningly stupid must one be to authorize building hospitals, prisons, and other public buildings in the tsunami inundation zone? When -- not if -- the next earthquake strikes the subduction zone, the evacuation time is between ten and thirty minutes, maximum, before the entire Pacific rises up and screams inland. And that's having to evacuate with destroyed roads, buildings, infrastructure, no power, etc. The people in these buildings are dead. Twenty thousand people died in Japan, and they were way, way more prepared for earthquakes and tsunamis than the West Coast ever will be. Just under three hundred thousand died when the massive subduction earthquake struck in the Indian Ocean.

A recent New Yorker article effectively guts this stupid building repeal, and puts the lie to the "economic development" argument put forth by mindnumbingly shortsighted politicians. The article's take on comparing tsunamis to tornadoes in Oklahoma:

Last week, Republican Representative David Brock Smith, who voted in favor of HB 3309, likened the risk that Oregonians face from the tsunami to the risk Oklahomans face from tornadoes. It’s hard to say if he was being deliberately disingenuous or is simply ignorant, but, either way, the analogy is wildly wrong. Never mind, for a moment, the difference in scale between a mile-wide tornado and a seven-hundred-mile-long tsunami. To survive a tornado, you just need a tornado shelter; a simple cellar will suffice. To survive a tsunami in the inundation zone, you need a multimillion-dollar building constructed to the highest possible safety standards. But HB 3309 does not mandate that new buildings in the inundation zone meet those standards.

Concerning the idiocy of this law from just an economic perspective:

No matter how you crunch the numbers, it's impossible to imagine any road to financial security that runs through the inundation zone. In places where there's truly no other evacuation option available, it's obviously better to have a tsunami-resistant building than nothing at all. But even if the political will suddenly materializes to mandate them, such buildings are expensive to construct, not always foolproof, and, if outcomes in Japan are any indication, likely to be abandoned and destroyed after the tsunami comes. A far better option is simply to start moving citizens and infrastructure out of harm's way. However daunting the price tag on doing so might seem now, it pales in comparison to how much it will cost to not have done so by the time catastrophe strikes.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by USDefault

HB3309 has to be the dumbest piece of legislation the Democrats and the Republicans voted for, and Kate Brown signed. How frighteningly stupid must one be to authorize building hospitals, prisons, and other public buildings in the tsunami inundation zone? When -- not if -- the next earthquake strikes the subduction zone, the evacuation time is between ten and thirty minutes, maximum, before the entire Pacific rises up and screams inland. And that's having to evacuate with destroyed roads, buildings, infrastructure, no power, etc. The people in these buildings are dead. Twenty thousand people died in Japan, and they were way, way more prepared for earthquakes and tsunamis than the West Coast ever will be. Just under three hundred thousand died when the massive subduction earthquake struck in the Indian Ocean.

A recent New Yorker article effectively guts this stupid building repeal, and puts the lie to the "economic development" argument put forth by mindnumbingly shortsighted politicians. The article's take on comparing tsunamis to tornadoes in Oklahoma:

Concerning the idiocy of this law from just an economic perspective:

OMG, the sky is falling, run, run, run.

I don't support the decision, but it's not surprising. It's just more of the crony capitalist system we live in. There is money to be made building in the tsunami zone, so they are going to do it, and both the Democrats and the Republicans are in on it. Money over life and happiness.

That said, let people decide for themselves where they want to live. Personally I live up above the tsunami zone. But if this disaster of biblical proportions, that you people keep predicting happens, I probably won't survive it anyway. The good news for me, there is about a 99.99999% chance that I will be dead of natural causes for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, before it happens. So it's not causing me any stress at all.

[PNW-type-gal]

There was never a restriction on building residences in a tsunami inundation zone, the restriction was on building public buildings - this is stupid and short-sighted legislation from people who NEED to be thinking 20, 50 years out. Also, just because they can now build there doesn't mean an insurance company will touch the project.

People can be as short-sighted and ostrich-like as they wish with their personal lives, but doing that with public buildings is stupid.

[Larry Caldwell]

I imagine the BCD will shortly come out with a code requiring all patient rooms to be placed at least 40' above ground level, but I can't imagine any building code that would require ambulances and fire engines to be parked out of the tsunami zone.

[BendLocal]

Is the population in LA, San Fran, or anywhere in Tornado Alley ill served by their local hospitals? Yes it will be a tragedy when a natural disaster finally hits. But how many lives have been improved or saved in the interim?

[leastprime]

Won't make a difference.
Current public buildings already within the zone now can rebuild within the zone --- but try to find a insurer to insure against floods, Perhaps, FEMA?
Besides, do you know of property that can be condemned for a public building, within The BigOne's zone? In PC, everywhere is within 3000 feet of a safe zone, except for Straub's Park.

[leastprime]

Read the NewYorker Article.
My take is that the Republican/Democratic/Governor killed a dead horse and trying to take credit for killing an onerous law/regulation.

I also doubt that there will be any bonding agencies will lend to a municipality for a public building within a hazard zone, and definitely within a FEMA Flood zone. The second issue is that the towns big enough with a public building/services are funded by taxes that mostly come from people who have secondary homes along the coast. Third point, Would be nice to have the PC Fire's building out of the Tsunami Zone, but doing so, would put the building and response further away from the residences and businesses it protects. PC did make a mistake in building its senior & community building west of Resort Dr, but there really isn't much land of higher elevation and within commuting distance for most of the PC. Fourth, there won't be much to save after the BigOne in PC. The Damage was done in the 70's when building was allowed west of Resort Drive in the marsh and dune facing the Pacific. Anyhow, those who could afford to build on the 1st dune and the marsh was, and is, pretty stupid with money.

[texasdiver]

How many new public buildings get built on the coast in a given year? Any? I'm just curious, I have no idea.

Most of the schools, hospitals, town halls, fire stations, etc. are aging and tend to get remodeled rather than built new.

And when a new public building on new land does get built, are not Tsunami safety issues going to be part of the consideration whether or not there is a state law requiring it?

Just saying, I have to wonder if this is more for show in some way that I don't quite understand. Are there some big public projects that are being blocked by the existing law? Is this to fix some specific problem in some specific town?

[leastprime]

OPB did a Big One show ~10 years ago. Seaside is vernable. Probably Tillamook's. PC's is.
As I said really doesn't matter. Once the Big One takes everything out, who would want to rebuild in the zone except those who afford to do so? And if the public buildings were to be relocated to higher ground, you would have a public building that would service a much smaller population that would pay taxes too low to support the services.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by leastprime

OPB did a Big One show ~10 years ago. Seaside is vernable. Probably Tillamook's. PC's is.
As I said really doesn't matter. Once the Big One takes everything out, who would want to rebuild in the zone except those who afford to do so? And if the public buildings were to be relocated to higher ground, you would have a public building that would service a much smaller population that would pay taxes too low to support the services.

The problem is that there really isn't much local economy anywhere on the coast. Most of the money is brought in from elsewhere not generated locally. So if the place is wiped out there will be very little reason for people to stay and rebuild everything. There will always be a draw because of the scenery and beaches are are precious commodity. So it won't ever be a deserted wasteland. But summer tourism is not enough to support a year-round economy.