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