After reading both Mike Davis\u2019 and Ted Steinberg\u2019s articles about the buildup of California and specifically Los Angeles and San Francisco within the past century, I could not help but be drawn to numerous ethical and psychological dilemmas faced by all those associated with the region.\u00a0 Both articles paint an ominous forecast for California and imply inevitable devastation.\u00a0 They clearly show how vulnerable the area is and how likely a massive catastrophe (most likely greater than the 1906 earthquake) is in the near future.\u00a0 Nevertheless, I find their arguments pushing for relocation shortsighted.\u00a0 I think they draw on some unique scientific proof, but their suggestions seem unrealistic.\u00a0 Individuals residing in California have understood the risks and still proceed with their lives.\u00a0 Scaring residents of Los Angeles and San Francisco will ultimately change little, for they have understood the risks for some time.<\/p>\n
Let me begin with some of the facts that Davis points to.\u00a0 He notes the unusual climate and geological location of California implying how the region is susceptible to weather anomalies.\u00a0 He notes that the rivers hardly ever reach their flowing average, but on the rare occasion they do, can flow at 3000 times their capacity.\u00a0 How after taking land samples, the area had experience catastrophic droughts comparable to Mayan proportions.\u00a0 Finally, he notes how the vaults are ticking time bombs ready for explosion.\u00a0 Forecasters predict an 80-90% chance of a big earthquake by 2025 and that in the past 195 years there should have been 17 catastrophic earthquakes, yet only 2 have actually occurred.\u00a0 Essentially, the area is doomed.\u00a0 At any point there could be a flood, a drought, a heat wave, or a massive earthquake.\u00a0 But isn\u2019t the climate what makes California so beautiful and appealing.\u00a0 I\u2019m not implying that people live in California for the risk of disaster, but that people see this tropical, Mediterranean mix as an appealing hybrid.\u00a0 The risks are a natural consequence for living in such a nice area.\u00a0 Even if there is a \u201cdry spell\u201d of earthquakes, people continue to play the game of chance.\u00a0 We are always playing the odds and clearly the climate of the west coast is appealing.<\/p>\n
From an economic prospective, the growth of the region makes relocation impossible. People moved out west for economic promise and hope for a better life. \u00a0As Steinberg notes, even in the immediate aftermath of 1906, the region quickly rebuilt.\u00a0 By the 1930\u2019s people began building for profit and in the 1950\u2019s there was an explosion of housing.\u00a0 The Redwood shores are a great example.\u00a0 Real estate moguls built up the area and even hired scientists to prove that their housing was no greater risk than anywhere else.\u00a0 Basically, if they didn\u2019t do it, someone else would have.\u00a0 Sherwood<\/a> makes some great points in his post that I believe support this claim.\u00a0 The conspiracy about the blame on businessmen for the improper memorialization of the 1906 earthquake is unwarranted.\u00a0 Capitalism is part of our United States\u2019 culture and someone took the opportunity that was there.\u00a0 There was now an economic draw because people were moving their businesses out west and families therefore relocated.\u00a0 By the middle of the century the reward in terms of livelihood was too great to ignore and risk became almost a non-factor.\u00a0 Even today, as Davis notes, the government (Clinton administration) pumped money into Southern California so there is an economic investment that cannot be ignored.<\/p>\n Finally, while both authors note the costs of abandoning the west coast, the reality is impossible.\u00a0 Who would fit the bill for disaster fortification?\u00a0 From the governments prospective they have four choices: 1. Stop people from living in dangerous area (but the California government would lose millions in taxes and lose residents) 2. Force earthquake remodeling (California would lose millions again because people would sell buildings at lower costs and relocate) 3. Pay for remodeling out of their own budget (but as Davis notes, the people in CA not from the vulnerable area would feel their tax money is wasted) or 4. Do nothing and proceed as is.\u00a0 Unless there is a disaster, the government will always do number four.\u00a0 From an individual prospective, it fiscally does not make sense to remodel.\u00a0 Insurance agencies pay up to 43% for a destructed house.\u00a0 If you put in twice the money that your house is worth remodeling for earthquake prevention and the house still gets destroyed, you basically double your losses. From an economic standpoint, people are willing to task the risk.\u00a0 Steinberg notes that a city like San Francisco would need to spend $835 million to save 415 lives.\u00a0 While you cannot put a dollar amount on a life, neither the city nor an individual will willingly sacrifice that much when it is still a game of chance.\u00a0 We cannot expect people to live in a bubble or alter their lives completely to construct this bubble.\u00a0 Californians know their risk and we should all step back praying that they continue to beat the system.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After reading both Mike Davis\u2019 and Ted Steinberg\u2019s articles about the buildup of California and specifically Los Angeles and San Francisco within the past century, I could not help but be drawn to numerous ethical and psychological dilemmas faced by all those associated with the region.\u00a0 Both articles paint an ominous forecast for California and … <\/p>\n