Economy will depressed for decades when the overdue earthquake hits? (Seattle: 2013, buy)

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by wallbuilder

If so, why would anyone buy a house here? Even if you pay $10k+/yr in earthquake insurance and can recoup the original value of your house, you will be forced to sell it at a fraction of the value, or be stuck here for decades until the economy revives.

If one believes that, don't buy a house here. Maybe move to that perfect risk free place with perfect weather, perfect economy, perfect culture. We have almost 4 million living in the metro. Others made a different calculation.

[myname_isborat]

Anyone have stats on % of homeowners who pay extra premium for earthquake insurance?

Edit: So apparently around 11% https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ake-insurance/

[CityWok]

I've entertained the idea of moving to Denver because of the increasing concerns of the big one and everything. But Seacove is right. No place is perfect. In Colorado you have to worry about wildfires, bentonite clay shifting and destroying the foundation of your home, and whether they'll run out of water at some point. The risks were simply not eliminated enough to give up all that is good here. You'll have risks everywhere, and at the end of the day, one weighs the number of risks and how likely they are to occur.

You must be looking at a pretty unique price range to pay $10k/year for Earthquake insurance.

[homesinseattle]

I only pay $800 a year for good earthquake insurance for our home in Seattle.

[pnwguy2]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what an 8.0-9.0 quake would mean for Seattle, and suburbs.

I agree it is perhaps somewhat overdue, but still in a window that could be tomorrow or not in any of our lifetimes.

More importantly, most scientists agree that this quake will be an 8.0-9.0 off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, not in Seattle. Likely the distance to the inland population centers would reduce the damage the further east one goes. Coastal areas would be hardest hit, and the bigger coastal population in Oregon is worrisome. Please don't misunderstand me here...there would certainly be damage in the Seattle/Portland/Vancouver BC areas depending on where exactly the slip occurs. But the hysteria that has been drummed up by some media outlets (NY Times comes to mind), is not factually based. I recently read a report that only lists certain areas in Seattle at extreme risk, and they tend to be Harbor Island, (landfill), and perhaps some lowland areas that could be at risk due to being on less solid soil. The two Seattle pro stadiums fit this description, but again, they were built to withstand.

In the meantime, Seattle and other big cities on the West Coast have rigid earthquake standards for new buildings, and most have been in place for decades. This of course still leaves many older structures in danger.

I am not trying to minimize the danger, just trying to help some understand that this event likely will not "destroy" a city, whether it be Seattle, Portland, or Vancouver.

I also agree that the economy will be fine after the event as there will be a certain amount of rebuilding of structures that do get damaged. And as another poster correctly pointed out, much of the Seattle area is tech-based. Not terribly in danger during a major quake.

[DenverBrian]

"Certain amount of rebuilding of structures" = BOOMING economy, IMO. Lots of construction/reconstruction jobs. Lots of cleanup jobs.

[Hemlock140]

Our earthquake insurance is $500/year, and the deductible is only 10%, but we are 23 miles east of the water (and fill) at 600' elevation. I agree that after the initial nightmare of destruction the economy will gain a big boost from the recovery jobs. Though the lowland fill areas of Seattle are definitely at risk from a big quake, I personally would be more wary of moving into the lahar zone below Mt. Rainier. There are new developments being built right in the path of the mud/lava flows should it erupt.



https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/mt...har-hazard-map

[Ruth4Truth]

Dude! The economy will be toast along with the forests, as the climate continues to warm, and parts of Seattle, along with other coastal regions will be underwater, so, IMO, "the big one" is the last of our worries. Our economy is in no way ready to handle the increase in natural disasters that are coming our way, and it's only going to get worse unless somebody gets in charge, who can get everything back on a more solid footing, and create a surplus, or at the very least--a much more resilient economy.

P.S. As the ice sheets turn to slush, the weight distribution around the planet will shift, creating more earthquakes. The warming climate will provoke "the big one", and other big ones in other regions. Deal.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by DenverBrian

"Certain amount of rebuilding of structures" = BOOMING economy, IMO. Lots of construction/reconstruction jobs. Lots of cleanup jobs.

Somebody would have to pay for that, though.

[DenverBrian]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Somebody would have to pay for that, though.

Somebody always does.


The closest "depressed for decades" analogy might be New Orleans post-Katrina. Certain areas of that town have never recovered, but overall, I don't think anyone thinks New Orleans is in Mad Max condition, and that's after only 14 years - not even "decades" plural.