Is it safe to move to SF? Earthquake risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be more worried about the fires.

There has literally not been one fire in SF in the last 15 years at least, except for buildings and houses catching on fire.

[Anonymous]

I was visiting SF summer 2011 (on the Golden Gate bridge) when my cousin texted me about the earthquake that cracked the Washington Monument. Go figure.
My point is there are natural disasters everywhere in the US, hurricanes in FL, tornado/twisters in Midwest, snowstorms in NE area, earthquakes in CA.
Just enjoy living in your area and deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was visiting SF summer 2011 (on the Golden Gate bridge) when my cousin texted me about the earthquake that cracked the Washington Monument. Go figure.
My point is there are natural disasters everywhere in the US, hurricanes in FL, tornado/twisters in Midwest, snowstorms in NE area, earthquakes in CA.
Just enjoy living in your area and deal with it.

Eh. I think California has more natural disasters issues than most areas. Earthquakes. Mudslides. Fires. Not enough water. And it’s overpopulated. There is not enough housing for the people who are already there. So I think ops hesitancy is well placed.

I do love California. It’s gorgeous. But it has a lot of issues, natural disaster wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was visiting SF summer 2011 (on the Golden Gate bridge) when my cousin texted me about the earthquake that cracked the Washington Monument. Go figure.
My point is there are natural disasters everywhere in the US, hurricanes in FL, tornado/twisters in Midwest, snowstorms in NE area, earthquakes in CA.
Just enjoy living in your area and deal with it.

Eh. I think California has more natural disasters issues than most areas. Earthquakes. Mudslides. Fires. Not enough water. And it’s overpopulated. There is not enough housing for the people who are already there. So I think ops hesitancy is well placed.

I do love California. It’s gorgeous. But it has a lot of issues, natural disaster wise.

Are you saying the bolded based on the homeless? If so, keep in mind that a lot of them are very mentally ill and can't live indoors, or have been homeless so long they're more comfortable outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, what do you expect someone to say? Yes, there’s an earthquake risk. Could happen tomorrow, could happen 100 years from now. From a geological standpoint, those odds aren’t all that different.

How high is the risk?

Is your google broken? 72% chance of a big one in the next 25 years or so.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf

I grew up in California. I've been hearing that statistic my entire life. I'm 56 now.

Guess that just means the Big One is even more imminent....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was visiting SF summer 2011 (on the Golden Gate bridge) when my cousin texted me about the earthquake that cracked the Washington Monument. Go figure.
My point is there are natural disasters everywhere in the US, hurricanes in FL, tornado/twisters in Midwest, snowstorms in NE area, earthquakes in CA.
Just enjoy living in your area and deal with it.

Eh. I think California has more natural disasters issues than most areas. Earthquakes. Mudslides. Fires. Not enough water. And it’s overpopulated. There is not enough housing for the people who are already there. So I think ops hesitancy is well placed.

I do love California. It’s gorgeous. But it has a lot of issues, natural disaster wise.

Are you saying the bolded based on the homeless? If so, keep in mind that a lot of them are very mentally ill and can't live indoors, or have been homeless so long they're more comfortable outside.

No. I’m saying that based on the numerous studies and media reports and speeches by public officials that have showed there is a huge housing crunch in California. This is not a disputed fact. They build houses in fire zones, ffs. Which is a terrible idea but they do it because the demand for housing is so high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, most commercial and newer residential construction in CA is built to survive an earthquake. You can research what areas are safer in a quake (not built on landfill or a steep hill). I don't think SF is unsafe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/california-earthquakes-high-rises.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was visiting SF summer 2011 (on the Golden Gate bridge) when my cousin texted me about the earthquake that cracked the Washington Monument. Go figure.
My point is there are natural disasters everywhere in the US, hurricanes in FL, tornado/twisters in Midwest, snowstorms in NE area, earthquakes in CA.
Just enjoy living in your area and deal with it.

You do realize that you can't compare the 2011 Earthquake here and the ones in California that occur daily?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be more worried about the fires.

I’d be more worried about the discarded needles, human feces everywhere, and aggressive transients blocking the sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in the Bay Area and was in law school there when the Loma Prieta earthquake occurred in 1989. Many of my East Coast friends couldn't understand why anyone would want to stay in the Bay Area after that. Twelve years later we were living in DC when the September 11 attacks took place. My husband worked across the street from the WH and I worked on the Hill. After that, we moved back to the Bay Area and are very happy here. If you're going to live at Ground Zero, you might as well live in a beautiful place with great weather. Not to mention, with fewer boring, conformist people.

[Anonymous]

I really, and I mean really, wouldn't worry about it.

I grew up in the Bay Area, left when I was 18. I can count on one hands the number of earthquakes I remember, none of which were more than minor temblors (I moved away before Loma Prieta).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was visiting SF summer 2011 (on the Golden Gate bridge) when my cousin texted me about the earthquake that cracked the Washington Monument. Go figure.
My point is there are natural disasters everywhere in the US, hurricanes in FL, tornado/twisters in Midwest, snowstorms in NE area, earthquakes in CA.
Just enjoy living in your area and deal with it.

You do realize that you can't compare the 2011 Earthquake here and the ones in California that occur daily?

You do realize that earthquakes powerful enough for people to actually feel take place far less than daily? Or even weekly or monthly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really, and I mean really, wouldn't worry about it.

I grew up in the Bay Area, left when I was 18. I can count on one hands the number of earthquakes I remember, none of which were more than minor temblors (I moved away before Loma Prieta).

If you left before Loma Prieta how can you say no big deal?

I used to live in the Bay Area, then lived through a major earthquake in another country and decided not to return to the Bay Area. There were many factors, but earthquakes were one of them...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be more worried about the fires.

Or the poo poo right on the streets. And not from dogs.

[Anonymous]

Earthquakes freaked me out when we first moved here. Fires too. But when I visit family back home in the summer, the tornadoes that seemed just a part of life now seem incredibly scary. When DH travels for work in winter and has to drive in snowy/icy conditions, I worry far more than I did when we lived in an area that frequently got snow and ice.

It’s never quite normal to know there could be a fire, earthquake, tornado or blizzard, but it’s much less scary when you know how to prepare and deal with it somewhat regularly.