Why do people rebuild after earthquakes?

[Eeyores Butterfly]

There does have to be a limit, though, doesn't there? When Parícutin erupted, the farmer who owned that land decided not to plant that field the next year. What will it take before the only rational decision is to leave a place behind? Clearly, being at sea level and sinking, on the delta of a major river, in a hurricane zone, isn't over the line. Clearly, being on a major earthquake fault isn't over the line. Is there a line?

A significant amount of damage the continues to occur. I posted earlier that after 93 our state bought out a lot of homes along the flood plane that lines the highway coming into town. (Right before the Missouri River bridge). This area had been flooded before but never to that extent. The government finally decided enough was enough and people were not allowed to rebuild. It is not atheltic fields for the State games.

You can't compare earthquakes or tornadoes to Paricutin was a volcano that literally grew out of a man's cornfield. Of course he didn't replant, there was a volcano where a flat field used to be! Not to mention it was an active volcano. That is a constant danger to the surrounding area as it is still active. Earthquakes on the other hand are very infrequent and do not always strike the same places. Just like while an area may be more prone to tornadoes, they strike very randomly and you can go many many years without ever seeing one. The last time there was a significant tornado in Kirksville, MO (several deaths there earlier this year) was in the 1800's.

You have to look at the likelihood that something will happen along with the logistics of relocating large populations of people.

 

[bicker]

I agree that tornados, practically never, would warrant relocation. Earthquakes are also not really that place-specific, but don't you think that there are certain places in earthquake territory that are simply too tenuous? And the examples I gave are real questions in my mind: The bridge to Sandy Hook which is continually being wiped out, for example?

 

[luvsJack]

IMO, yes. I am from VA, but spent the last 11 years on the Gulf Coast and have evacuated for 3 hurricanes, including Katrina since I lived just outside New Orleans at the time. We just recently left the NOLA area and came back HOME to VA and there really is no place like home. People that are from Louisiana (just as an example), born and raised, that's their home and they aren't going to leave. I couldn't understand why so many people rebuilt after Katrina either, but when it's home, it's home no matter what. Hope that makes some sense ;0)

I believe it is exactly what you said. "Home is where your heart is" and if your heart is truly in a place then you do not want to leave. Especially during times of great stress and turmoil (like after a devasting disaster)

I don't know about the frequency of earthquakes but with hurricanes, its just not so frequent that it makes a person leave. Katrina was bad. Our coastline demolished. The last hurricane that did anywhere near the damage of Katrina was Camille in 1969 (I think thats the year). There were others in between but not anything of that kind of magnitude and its the same with New Orleans. They just don't come with enough frequency to warrant packing up and leaving a place that you call home.

 

[bumbershoot]

To answer your question.....People rebuild because that's what humanity is all about. Bouncing back. Not letting anything defeat us. We don't run. We learn from past mistakes and we adjust. Most of the time at least.

Changed the word for ya.

I think this underlying question here needs to be: To what extent should society assist people in rebuilding where it is arguably inadvisable to rebuild?

Who decides where it's inadvisable? I think people living in tornado areas are nearly certifiable. However, I enjoy a gorgeous view of Mt Rainier if I turn my head to the left (yep, it's "out" today, verified). The other day flying up from CA, we got to see ALL the volcanic mountains from OR to WA, and it was incredible, even though I know that seismic activity caused it. I have family who live in Florida, and every time hurricanes go through I worry. My brother lives in Chula Vista and they have fires. And so on and so forth. I don't know what this Sandy Hook place is, I don't care. People want to live there. If they use gov't funds to build their bridge, then that gov't agency gets to decide how many rebuilds they want to fund. If they decide to not fund it, then the residents get to decide how badly they want to stay.

From my son: He thought it made a lot of sense that homes built back after earthquakes were built much safer. However, he wasn't so sure about the emotional aspect.

Well, I'm not sure that my 5 year old would understand it either, if I were to discuss it with him. I think I'm waiting to talk about such things with him, though... From my own experience and memory, learning about those things that young doesn't give a whole lot of true understanding (I was born in SF, grew up just south of it), so I'm waiting.

 

[bicker]

Who decides where it's inadvisable?

Indeed. In terms of public funds, clearly the answer is "our elected representatives". They need to figure out where to draw that line.

People want to live there. If they use gov't funds to build their bridge, then that gov't agency gets to decide how many rebuilds they want to fund.

Actually, the agency (specifically, the National Park Service, in that case) would need to answer to Congress, since the agency's funding doesn't include rebuilding.

 

[disney1990]

Does this mean that the OP would not visit the State of California? After all, an earthquake could come at anytime.

Like so many people have said, different parts of the country each have their own diasters to worry about. You just can't worry about it everyday.

 

[tonilea]

Well, I'm not sure that my 5 year old would understand it either, if I were to discuss it with him. I think I'm waiting to talk about such things with him, though... From my own experience and memory, learning about those things that young doesn't give a whole lot of true understanding (I was born in SF, grew up just south of it), so I'm waiting.

I don't expect him to understand it fully either, but it is the subject of a book he is reading. So, I'd rather discuss it and help him draw reasonable conclusions as opposed to something out of his very vivid imagination. lol

 

[tonilea]

Does this mean that the OP would not visit the State of California? After all, an earthquake could come at anytime.

Like so many people have said, different parts of the country each have their own diasters to worry about. You just can't worry about it everyday.

No, it doesn't mean I would never visit California. I am talking about a sustained, unacceptable risk. It was a question asked by my son, that I had wondered about, but never given much serious thought. I have been educated about earthquakes as a result of this thread.

I have to say, though, when we build our house we will certainly consider the location on the property, we wouldn't build on the creek bank to avoid flooding. I wouldn't build in the storm surge area of a coastal area. There are certain risks to like and property that are unacceptable to me.