I just readthis article in the Salt Lake paper. For those of you unfamiliar with Salt Lake, this house is one of many McMansions built on a bench about 20 miles south of Salt Lake. Its a flat area below the one steep mountain slope and above another one. The bench was part of the ancient lake Bonneville shoreline and consists of obviously unstable silt. From the freeway you can see enormous errosion channels and evidence of earlier landslides.
I've been astounded over the past decade as enormous homes have been built with their porches virtually overhanging the edge of the errosion channels. Every time I've driven to Provo, I've wondered how long it would be before one of these homes toppled off the hill. This was so obviously a tragedy waiting to happen its hard to believe that anyone could have overlooked it. I still can't believe that A) anyone would be stupid enought to buy a house in such a clearly unstable locations, B) any builder or developer would be dishonest enough to build a house in such a location, C) the city and county would ever give a building permit for this location, D) any bank would loan money to build in such a location and that E) any insurance company would insure such a home. Yet all of that obviously happened (except clearly part E).
Of course I should mention that that these lots have a stellar view of the valley and quick easy access to mountain trails which makes them expensive enough that only McMansion get built there. I 'm quite certain that the orginal owners of the land made alot of money selling it to the developer who subdivided it. I've had enough experience in this area to know how these things happen. Salt Lake county is notorious for allow developers to subdivide places that should never qualify for building permits. If the county forbids it, the landowners scream about 'takings' and 'private property rights'. The developers then sell the lots to people who are naive enough to assume that if the county allowed it to subdivided it is suitable for building a home (which really ought to be the case but all to frequently isn't). They then put alot of money and effort into circumvent the city or counties building regulations in order to protect the investment they've already made in the land. If they put enough money in to it, they nearly always get the building permit. In the end, some family ends up living in a very expensive house which is doomed to slide off the hill sooner or later. They get their sob stories in the paper and far more often than not tax payers end up paying to shore up the hill side or something to fix their problem.
Let me reiterate, we aren't talking about poor people who couldn't afford a house somewhere else. Millions and millions of dollars were made building the houses in this obviously unstable place and the people who live their aren't eating Raman noodles cause they can't afford steak.
So I'm interested to hear from Hatrackers what you think should be done about such situations.
Should cities and counties be responsible to tow a hard line and forbid building in such place despite the pressure? Is the whole building permit idea flawed from the get go, giving people an false assurance that their homes are built in safe locations even when it should be obvious they aren't? Should developers and builders bare some liability if they build in unsafe locations? Is this just a case of 'let the buyer beware'?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The buyer should beware. And so should the insurer.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Have you driven North, through Davis County lately? Almost all of the mud flats, that were under the Great Salt Lake after the summer of 1984, are filled with new homes. Salt Lake is certainly not alone in this "drive to distruction". Look at the City of New Orleans. I don't mean the train. (Although it looks like they are headed for another train wreak.) Not to fear! We will find some way for the taxpayers of the Nation to foot the bill. It's enough to drive a good Socialist to Libertarian longings. (edit to add) You must remember, this is in a state where they do not require motorcycle helmets eather!
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
My dad's a geologist and lives in Davis county, and he's been predicting doom and gloom for the hillside homes for years. I'm not surprised that it's happening at all.
Of course, my uncle lives in one of those big houses up in Bountiful canyon, so if it falls down, he's in trouble. On the other hand, there's little yard at all anyway - they didn't pretend to make a plateau and just built the house against the mountain.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
This is why the gov't shouldn't save people from their stupidity.
If they want to build in a place where they're obviously going to be splattered, fine. If someone buys it knowingly, fine. If an insurance company knowingly insures it, fine.
But none of them should expect the gov't to bail them out. You dug your own hole. It's your fault. Don't stick the rest of us with the bill.
When I was growing up, people in Little Rock were always getting flooded out. Naturally, the state and the federal gov't shelled out vast sums of money to help them rebuilt (back in the flood plane) and dredge creeks so they wouldn't flood quite so much next time. It's nuts. It's not the rest of our jobs to fix your property. Build on it, get flooded out, and either rebuild till the next flood or MOVE. But don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Look at the City of New Orleans. I don't mean the train. (Although it looks like they are headed for another train wreak.) Not to fear! We will find some way for the taxpayers of the Nation to foot the bill.
New Orleans was settled in the 1600s. How is that analogous to homes being presently built on unstable property?
quote:(edit to add) You must remember, this is in a state where they do not require motorcycle helmets either!
Not true. See here. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:"I've had many sleepless nights over it," Jason Robles said. "You buy something, you do a little due diligence, but you figure these houses wouldn't have been built if they weren't safe."
Yeah, because companies never, ever sell products that are unsafe.
I feel bad that the guy is now in a terrible financial situation, but this isn't the first time that the mountainside has slid away under someone's house. He should've known better. And I also think that whoever issued the building permit shouldn't have done so in the first place.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:"I've had many sleepless nights over it," Jason Robles said. "You buy something, you do a little due diligence, but you figure these houses wouldn't have been built if they weren't safe."
Yeah, because companies never, ever sell products that are unsafe.
I feel bad that the guy is now in a terrible financial situation, but this isn't the first time that the mountainside has slid away under someone's house. He should've known better. And I also think that whoever issued the building permit shouldn't have done so in the first place.
I've seen the spot where these houses are built. The erosion channels are visible from across the valley. The houses are built on what anyone should recognize as a slide zone. But still I can't blame the home owner alone. Somewhere along the line a trained geologist had to sign off on this. A building inspector certainly had to approve his mortgage. Professional contractors and archetects had to be involved in the design and construction. I can easily see someone rationalizing that if all those professionals approved it, it must be safer. Those professionals should bare a portion of the liability when something this happens. If they did, I bet you'd see alot fewer homes built in rediculously unsafe locations.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
There are 3 rivers that run through my city. People actually had to start sporting "It's a flood plan, Stupid" bumper stickers to convince the local government not to allow a new condo development from going in. Fortunately it was stopped, but there were a lot of upset people who wanted to build condo's with nice views right on the river.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
At my relatives' area in Northern Virginia, there are new "McMansions" being built just down the road, which don't have enough land to support their septic systems. (Obviously, they can't connect to city water and sewer in this area.) It caused a minor scandal, I guess, when the problem was discovered. There are strict rules regarding septic systems in the county and the enforcers of said rules were not being sympathetic. This is where my memory of the situation gets a little blurry.
Oh well, in Kansas, I think the biggest problem is flooding. It seems like some people don't do research before building a home near the river and don't have any idea of how large floods on said river can be. After our experiences during this wet cycle, there ought to be a renewed appreciation for the size of Kansas river valleys and the forces that carved them. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
As city government I would be inclined if it were possible to make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances would government accept any liability for the properies, up to and including insisting on clear, non-fine-print language stating as much in any sales documentation. Make it hard to sell them; make it so anyone who buys one cannot claim they didn't have any hint what they were getting into.
I mean, yes, ideally they'd stick to their guns and not allow the building in the first place, but city and county governments have a hard time with that, especially when an endless court siege is the threatened result.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Somewhere along the line a trained geologist had to sign off on this.
Why do you say this? Is there a special situation that requires that for building in this area? There should be, but I doubt there is.
I don't know specifically what the geology looks like, but I'm sure the houses could have been stabilized. It's just a question of how much money you want to spend doing it. And that should be completely on the homeowner's tab, not the government's.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I generally feel that if we can tame an area with relative safety, we should do so. That's what technology is for. You have to asses risks vs. reward, with the understanding that everywhere has some risks.
You can't really clear out California because there could be earthquakes, the midwest because there are tornadoes, the gulf coast to protect people from hurricanes, river valleys and flood plains to keep people away from potential floods, mountains because there could be rock slides, deserts face droughts... Nowhere is without risk.
I say, let people build where they see fit, as long as they understand the risks. If they're being deceived by greedy developers, that's a problem, but if they understand the risks and are willing to take their chances, that's one of the things that makes America great.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know, I was looking at the the rivers near Chicago on my most recent plane trip, and I was really amazed at how obviously unnatural areas that should be drainages around the river are. When these areas are "tamed" it makes the river exponentially more dangerous. It's like how an artificial heart can't be responsive to the amount of pumping that is required to keep someone conscious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
zgator, I made that assessment based on my personal experience getting a building permit in the foothills of the Salt Lake valley. The building permit had to be approved by a geologist. I assume similar rules are in place in Draper which is part of Salt Lake County.
Posted by School4ever (Member # 5575) on :
I know a family in that exact neighborhood. When I went to visit them the first time, I could not believe they had purchased such an expensive home in such a horrible location. They had only lived there a few months and their huge front window overlooking the valley had already cracked and been replaced twice due to the shifting of the land.
I love this family, and the couple is very intelligent about other things, but this house was not one of them. Oh well, so far they have lived there for five years, so they have gotten five years of enjoyment out of the house.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I generally feel that if we can tame an area with relative safety, we should do so. That's what technology is for. You have to asses risks vs. reward, with the understanding that everywhere has some risks.
You can't really clear out California because there could be earthquakes, the midwest because there are tornadoes, the gulf coast to protect people from hurricanes, river valleys and flood plains to keep people away from potential floods, mountains because there could be rock slides, deserts face droughts... Nowhere is without risk.
I say, let people build where they see fit, as long as they understand the risks. If they're being deceived by greedy developers, that's a problem, but if they understand the risks and are willing to take their chances, that's one of the things that makes America great.
Reducto ad absurdum!
There is a difference between arguing that no permits for houses that straddle known active fault lines should be issued and banning all building in California. The fact that every potential building site has risks does not change the fact that some have much higher risks than others and some may indeed have unacceptably high risk.
Houses aren't being built in many of the high risk areas like this bench or water fronts because there is nowhere else to build. People choose these places for the views and the prestige.
Letting people build where they see fit might make sense if it were reasonable to assume that only the builder would be affected. What if the homeowner has children or elderly parents living with them who have no choice but to accept the risk? What if the house slides onto someone elses house? What if it contaminates groundwater or surface water that others use? What if it endangers pedestrians? If the house is destroyed and the homeowner declares bankrupcy as a result this indirectly impacts everyone who has done business with this homeowner or his creditors.
And while its all fine and good to pontificate about how these people deserve no assistance from the community when their home is destroyed, we all know that this won't happen. Even if no official government assistance is offered, if this hillside collapses and several homes are destroyed the community will rally around these families. Neighbors, family, churches and community groups will offer them shelter, collect money and goods to help them replace what they've lost and help them get back on there feet. That's one of the things that is great about this country.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rabbit: Freely given assistance is a completely different beast than government given assistance.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Rabbit: Freely given assistance is a completely different beast than government given assistance.
I never said they were the same. I only claimed that when you are part of a community your actions will affect others and it is ridiculous to act as though they don't.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The same type of thing is going on in Navarre Beach, FL right now (and probably lots of other places too). They've had several hurricanes in the last 5 years that have destroyed a lot of homes, businesses, properties, Air Force installments, etc. At Navarre Beach there is a sound separating the mainland and a narrow straight that runs parallel to the mainland, and might as well be an island (that's what everyone calls it anyway). So all kinds of houses got destroyed, including the beach house that my grandpa and uncles built with their own hands. The island itself almost washed away, and is no more than 100 yards wide at some points. The coast is constantly changing as the sand is washed away.
So what do the developers do? Pump hundreds of thousands of pounds of sand out of the gulf and onto the island, so they can build $3mill houses. Right on the water. Which is constantly changing. It is almost beyond my understanding why someone would shell out that much money for a house that probably won't last more than a year or two.
I'm in the camp that if someone wants to build it and buy it, more power to them, but when the house gets broke, the gov't shouldn't fix it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
vonk: On the flip side my sister purchased a house in Navarre that is about 5 minutes walk from the beach because of booming prices (her husband was stationed at the AF base). The hurricanes hit, their house was fine, but prices plummeted, and if they sell the house now they will lose alot of money. I almost wish the house had been demolished so they could collect on insurance which is quite pricey for hurricane protection.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't know, I was looking at the the rivers near Chicago on my most recent plane trip, and I was really amazed at how obviously unnatural areas that should be drainages around the river are. When these areas are "tamed" it makes the river exponentially more dangerous. It's like how an artificial heart can't be responsive to the amount of pumping that is required to keep someone conscious.
Uh... the reason why those areas are "unnatural" is because the whole place used to be a SWAMP. The drainage was created to cut back on cholera epidemics. "Well Chicago shouldn't have been build there " you might respond. The reason why it did end up on a swamp was because that swamp was the subcontinental divide that got you from the Great Lakes waterway to the Mississippi.
As far as trade routes went Chicago was ideal. There are a couple of places along the Des Plaines river that flood semi-regularly but on the whole the Chicago area is a model of flood-control engineering for the good of the public health.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It is almost beyond my understanding why someone would shell out that much money for a house that probably won't last more than a year or two.
In order to understand why someone would do this you need to look at the states insurance laws. Most coastal state have laws which allow people who don't qualify for private insurance to buy price regulated insurance from the state. The details differ from state to state. The laws were orginally made to protect poor rural areas but in recent years virtually every private insurace company has begun refusing to insure water front property. That means that the wealthy people who build houses in places like Navarra get tax payer subsidized insurance. So basically everyone who lives in Florida help subsidize those wealthy idiots who build homes in such areas. Its criminal.
Its fine to say people should be able to build if they bare the full risk but then you really need to investigate all the insurance regulations and public programs which spread the risk to other people and make sure they are eliminated. Its very hard to do this without eliminating the safety nets we have in place to help truly innocent victims of natural disasters.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Good point. I didn't know the insurance was state subsidized. Would it be possible to regulate that based on household income or corporate vs. private ownership?
quote:vonk: On the flip side my sister purchased a house in Navarre that is about 5 minutes walk from the beach because of booming prices (her husband was stationed at the AF base). The hurricanes hit, their house was fine, but prices plummeted, and if they sell the house now they will lose alot of money. I almost wish the house had been demolished so they could collect on insurance which is quite pricey for hurricane protection.
Is she on the mainland or the island? Not that it matters, just curious. My grandmom's property is on the mainland, and while the house, which was right on the water, was destroyed, the land was still pretty valuable. She got lots of great offers but was holding out. After the second hurricane came through and destroyed some much more she stopped getting offers. I think she would be able to sell a lot easier if the property were on the island, where all the hot pink beach mansions are going up.
It seems like on the mainland everyone is developing subdivisions and moderate residential areas that will probably be better protected from the storms by huge walls and beach reinforcement, but that's not the cash cow that beach mansions obviously are.
[ July 20, 2007, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Good point. I didn't know the insurance was state subsidized.
It's not necessarily state subsidized in the way you might normally consider. Some state regulations simply require insurance companies to offer the same rate everywhere in the state. If they can't (or just don't) charge more to people in high risk areas then they must charge more to everyone. This means that people who live in low risk areas 200 miles from the coast end up subsidizing the wealthy fools who build their mansions on the beach.
In other places, the state offers flood insurance to people who can't get private flood insurance. These funds always end up in deficit if their is a major disaster.
Either way, the community ends up subsidizing wealthy people with beach homes or great views.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
She is on the mainland Vonk.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Reducto ad absurdum!
There is a difference between arguing that no permits for houses that straddle known active fault lines should be issued and banning all building in California. The fact that every potential building site has risks does not change the fact that some have much higher risks than others and some may indeed have unacceptably high risk.
My point being, how do you determine what's too risky, and what's an acceptable level of risk? Who gets to say that one river bank is unsafe, while an area near a fault is safe?
I think as long as people are made aware of the risks involved, they should have a fair amount of freedom in their choices. If you ask insurance adjusters, I'd bet that a large percentage of houses are already built in areas where there's a high risk of natural disaster. How many of those people should we make leave their homes?
I'm also noticing a lot of resentment towards "wealthy people" and their beach front property. How much of this is sour grapes, I wonder?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm also noticing a lot of resentment towards "wealthy people" and their beach front property. How much of this is sour grapes, I wonder?
None what so ever, I can assure you. I am wealthy enough to do what I please. If I wanted beach front property, I'd have it. I resent public policies which force the middle class to subsidize the wealthy. I find them deeply immoral.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How much are the middle class really subsidizing the wealthy though? Aren't the wealthy paying more taxes, paying more insurance, and more for the property itself, etc?
Is it more acceptable if it's a lower income family living in New Orleans, which is prone to flood and hurricane damage, as we were unfortunately shown recently?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The point of being wealthy is doing nothing for yourself that you would find onerous. Ya "have people" to do whatcha want for you. That most especially includes "having people" workin' to make the money to pay your taxes.
I didn't approve of the NewOrleans rebuild in the first place. And you are ignoring the obvious. Coulda bought a median-priced house in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas for every Katrina evacuee for far less than the "cost of rebuilding". Most of those evacuees never returned to NewOrleans. The price of even cheap housing has gone up so much that they couldn't afford to move back if they wanted to. And the government certainly didn't build new homes for them, or buy them houses elsewhere.
Which means of course that the federal taxes paying the "cost of rebuilding" mostly benefits those who who were the least affected by the hurricane, the better-off who were living in the more expensive high-ground neighborhoods unaffected by flooding. And mortgage lenders, land speculators, building contractors, etc.
[ July 20, 2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:New Orleans was settled in the 1600s. How is that analogous to homes being presently built on unstable property?
Yes. That was before they built over the wetlands, dredged and straightened the river channel and drained the aquifer, lowering the ground level. And before someone(s) raised the sea level. Given all that, it was still a poor choice for a city site evenin the 1600s.
quote:Not true. See here.
It dosen't matter what the governer signs, its what the authorities enforce. I was driving the freeways of SLC just two weeks ago. probably 10% of the motorcycle riders had helmets on their head. They strap them to the cargo shelf, and that satasfys the law.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
For the record, there are a number of structural systems that would make that site completely feasible for construction (driveway access could be an issue, but it usually is anyways). Piers or Piles (or some other deep foundation) would be able to either reach soil deep enough that it wouldn't likely be eroded for many years, or get below the erosion prone soil entirely.
Then again, developers who design and develop homes such as these aren't likely to put in the required thought and funds to design them into a house.
EDIT: So it was just the back yard? That's even sillier...
Posted by Zan (Member # 4888) on :
In Florida, Citizens is the state insurance company of last resort. If you can't get insured anywhere else, they have to insure you. The cost for is regulated to be higher than any private insurance though.
The big problem, though, is that even with the higher rates, it's still not enough to cover things if another big hurricane hits. Too many wealthy people complained too loudly about their sky high rates. Well, it should be high. You live on the coast. When Citizens runs out of money, all the other insured homeowners in the state get hit with a surcharge. So it's not really taxpayer funded - it's mainland homeowner funded.
BTW, Rabbit, was it a geologist or a geotech engineer that would have to certify things? Because, really, a geologist isn't qualified to certify things like slope stability or determine what can be done to stabilize it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)