To Buy or Not to Buy Houses in the East Bay Area? Possible 7.0 Hayward Fault Earthquake? (moving, deals)

[tanglenet]

This is the site I used for determining where to buy. It also shows simulations of the effect on other Bay Area faults.

ABAG Resilience Program

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by smashystyle

Growing up in the Bay Area and living through the '89 Loma Prieta quake, I didn't really worry about earthquakes. One will come on the Hayward Fault, maybe today, maybe in 100 years.

I don't think you can really compare the Nepal earthquake to what would happen in the Bay Area. Construction standards are just much better (except for maybe the new Bay Bridge ). I don't see earthquakes as a big risk for personal safety. There is a bigger risk for damage to your house, but even then, most wood frame houses are going to come out fine and you can get (expensive) earthquake insurance if you are particularly concerned. Still, if you want to minimize your earthquake risk, look for a house built on bedrock and one made of earthquake-resistant materials. Old wood frame houses actually do very well.

I agree. For houses built 1950's + to be damaged in any quantity would require a huge quake which would lead to massive amounts of federal money, insurance or not. Hell, if someone was smart they would have a nice savings to be used as a down payment for a new house right after a large quake as housing prices drop temporarily.

[jk88cal]

Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist. I would rather live in the hills on bedrock closer to Hayward fault, then to live in the flats around the bay in sandy soil with liquefaction potential. Liquefaction not only occurs in landfills, but also soil. And don't be fooled by distance to fault. Earthquakes can be deep and affected radius is easily 50+ miles. And there are always new secondary faults that are found. So as long as you are not on top of existing faultline, then I rather be on top of bedrock.

On real estate, I do own my primary residence and some rentals. If you are buying primary residence to live in, you should "hurry." By hurry, I don't mean buying tomorrow. Even if anyone is seriously buying, it will take easily 6+ months to buy in today's market anyways. The general trend is up. Waiting for a correction (or for an earthquake) is not a smart strategy. You might save maybe 10% or maybe 20% in a correction, but it won't allow you to move into prime area or buy your dream home. There is more risk in waiting.

On the other hand, if buying secondary house for rental, I'd wait.

[California Vagabond]

It sounds like you've already made up your mind, but I'll second clongirl's recommendation to rent for at least a little while before you buy. Yes, it's money you won't get back, but your impression of Bay Area neighborhoods is guaranteed to change once you're on the ground here and looking things over first hand.

I agree with others who wouldn't consider the commute from Tracy. Too far.

It's been awhile since I did the research, but I remember thinking that homes near the North Concord Martinez BART station and further out near Pittsburg BART could be worth considering for those with earthquake concerns. I think only the Green River Fault is a worry that far out, and some homes are on acres less susceptible to liquefaction. I'm afraid I'm not motivated enough to dig up old research; take it as a lead, if you're interested.

I believe that the California Earthquake Authority is solvent, and that commercial insurers can provide CEA coverage (for a significant price). The insurer may ask you to install an automatic gas shut off valve, or make some other home improvements. Another insurer -- the name slips my mind -- will cover earthquake risk here separately from the CEA if the home is adequately bolted to the foundation. I understand why; I knew a fellow who paid well over $100K in 1989 dollars to get his house put back on the foundation after Loma Prieta!

I grew up in the Bay Area, and well remember the hair pulling that followed Loma Prieta. I think your concerns are sound, but the bottom line is that no one knows when, if, or how big. Randy Reckless could buy a high risk home for a bargain price, and look like the smartest guy in Northern California when the quake doesn't strike in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and so on. If it never strikes, he can shrug and dismiss all the earthquake hand wringing as alarmist.

If it does strike, different story.

The webmaster of the Front Steps real estate blog has written that searches on his site for liquefaction information skyrocket every time a small tremblor strikes here.

Unfortunately, you won't recoup earthquake safety related improvements when it's time to sell. Kitchen and bathroom remodel, yes; shoring up for a quake, no.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by California Vagabond

It sounds like you've already made up your mind, but I'll second clongirl's recommendation to rent for at least a little while before you buy. Yes, it's money you won't get back, but your impression of Bay Area neighborhoods is guaranteed to change once you're on the ground here and looking things over first hand.

I agree with others who wouldn't consider the commute from Tracy. Too far.

It's been awhile since I did the research, but I remember thinking that homes near the North Concord Martinez BART station and further out near Pittsburg BART could be worth considering for those with earthquake concerns. I think only the Green River Fault is a worry that far out, and some homes are on acres less susceptible to liquefaction. I'm afraid I'm not motivated enough to dig up old research; take it as a lead, if you're interested.

I believe that the California Earthquake Authority is solvent, and that commercial insurers can provide CEA coverage (for a significant price). The insurer may ask you to install an automatic gas shut off valve, or make some other home improvements. Another insurer -- the name slips my mind -- will cover earthquake risk here separately from the CEA if the home is adequately bolted to the foundation. I understand why; I knew a fellow who paid well over $100K in 1989 dollars to get his house put back on the foundation after Loma Prieta!

I grew up in the Bay Area, and well remember the hair pulling that followed Loma Prieta. I think your concerns are sound, but the bottom line is that no one knows when, if, or how big. Randy Reckless could buy a high risk home for a bargain price, and look like the smartest guy in Northern California when the quake doesn't strike in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and so on. If it never strikes, he can shrug and dismiss all the earthquake hand wringing as alarmist.

If it does strike, different story.

The webmaster of the Front Steps real estate blog has written that searches on his site for liquefaction information skyrocket every time a small tremblor strikes here.

Unfortunately, you won't recoup earthquake safety related improvements when it's time to sell. Kitchen and bathroom remodel, yes; shoring up for a quake, no.

The hard part with the earthquake insurance besides the exceptionally high premiums is the deductible is often in the 70k+ range. It makes it really hard to justify purchasing it when the deductible is so high and the value in the property is in the earth and not the house.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by California Vagabond

It's been awhile since I did the research, but I remember thinking that homes near the North Concord Martinez BART station and further out near Pittsburg BART could be worth considering for those with earthquake concerns. I think only the Green River Fault is a worry that far out, and some homes are on acres less susceptible to liquefaction. I'm afraid I'm not motivated enough to dig up old research; take it as a lead, if you're interested..

This isn't a bad idea, OP. Concord is certainly more affordable than Fremont, if that's your concern. So you can explore real estate listings around Concord. Maybe someone here can tell you which neighborhoods are good, which to avoid. We had a member who was a single woman, and she bought near the main Concord BART station, she said the neighborhood was fine, affordable, and close to grocery, etc.

[Ultrarunner]

If you are really fearful of earthquakes then no matter what anyone says... it will always be the elephant in the room...

Soft story and masonry were hardest hit last go round...

Several co-workers moved to Tracy and Mountain House... they still love their homes... they absolutely detest the commute and in winter with valley fog... it can be downright dangerous...

[ServoMiff]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Interesting. Why do you say that? I was speaking in the shorter=term, anyway. By this time next year, prices will have moved out of the OP's range.

Following the money and local business - Venture Capital money is drying up. Fewer viable startups are appearing, and many of the major tech companies have divisions from acquisitions that they'll soon be folding or scaling back significantly. At least in my opinion, this is going to be less impactful than the dot com bust, but I do believe the local economy is due for some "rebalancing" as a result of many of the economic indicators I follow.

It's all speculation, of course.

[justmeinca]

Originally Posted by ServoMiff

Following the money and local business - Venture Capital money is drying up. Fewer viable startups are appearing, and many of the major tech companies have divisions from acquisitions that they'll soon be folding or scaling back significantly. At least in my opinion, this is going to be less impactful than the dot com bust, but I do believe the local economy is due for some "rebalancing" as a result of many of the economic indicators I follow.

It's all speculation, of course.

Re: " Venture Capital money is drying up."

Following the money:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/te...ents.html?_r=0

Uber is going to raise *additional* $1.5+ B and Zenefit just raised f'ing $500M (Both are Bay Area companies).

Venture Capital money is NOT drying up. It is your wishful thinking...

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by justmeinca

Re: " Venture Capital money is drying up."

Following the money:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/te...ents.html?_r=0

Uber is going to raise *additional* $1.5+ B and Zenefit just raised f'ing $500M (Both are Bay Area companies).

Venture Capital money is NOT drying up. It is your wishful thinking...

I think the post from ServoMiff was talking more about VC money for newly-founded start ups vs. VC money being poured into already-existing companies (especially big ones, such as Uber).

I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of these claims (that VC money is drying up), but I think that was the point.

It would make a little sense if things did start to dry up for the newest start ups...but I have no idea if it's actually happening, though.