[CEUS-earthquake-hazards] There's no free Lunch

[CivilJoeT]

John et al:

You're way off Base. 

Not all building owners are developers. Those who are developers don't want
their buildings to be so cheap that they become a hazard - there's no profit
in it. Any government mandates handed to the private sector are paid for by
the consumer (that's you and me). Owners of private sector buildings have
finite budgets; unlike the government, they can't raise taxes to pay for
unproven mandates. There are no free lunches in either the private sector or
the government sector; somebody will pay the bill.  Therefore, economics is
a large factor in mandating strong seismic mitigation efforts. (refer to my
e-mails regarding California's critical care hospitals - "The Balance")

Why oppose the building owners the option to make their own seismic risk
assessment? If it makes economic sense wouldn't all building owners in the
New Madrid Seismic Zone see the profit in using the NEHRP Seismic
Provisions? Our experience has shown otherwise. When given a choice, our
clients (a healthy mix of small corporations and Fortune 500 corporations),
more often than not, opt for moderate seismic mitigation and most always
reject strong seismic mitigation. 

Since mandated seismic mitigation affects the developer more, they should
have a fair amount of say in what those mandates might be.  In my opinion,
the government is obligated to justify such unfunded mandates with something
better than, "it might happen tomorrow". To date, the government has failed
to show any favorable cost/benefit relationship for the New Madrid Seismic
Zone and I doubt they ever will. This may explain the Federal Government's
top down approach to seismic mitigation regulations; a first in the history
of building codes. 

Is the argument for strong seismic mitigation so weak that there's a need
for cheap shots at developers? By the way, the last I heard land development
is not a sin, nor is making a profit. 



Joseph Tomasello
The Reaves Firm
5880 Ridge Bend Dr.
Memphis, 38120


-----Original Message-----
From: ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces at geohazards.usgs.gov
[mailto:ceus-earthquake-hazards-bounces at geohazards.usgs.gov] On Behalf Of
John Lahr
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:35 PM
To: ceus-earthquake-hazards at geohazards.usgs.gov
Subject: Re: [CEUS-earthquake-hazards] reply to Joe Tomasello; buildings
codes and earthquake hazard

It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest between those who 
wish to build buildings with the least expense possible and those who 
don't want them to collapse.  No doubt, in most cases these are the 
same people, but clearly decisions on ground motion should not be 
made on the basis of economic impact.

What ever input developers have, it should be minimal.

Cheers,
John Lahr