To: montyh(--nospam--at)gci.net, seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: 6.2+ earthquake in Seattle
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:44:47 EST
Of course, and if I were in the driver's seat I would like to have made the
same choice as you (I think). But I wasn't--the engineer seldom is, are we?
And of course the choice wasn't as you describe it. Rather it was between
the certainty of unemployment (if they weren't bluffing, and since this was a
tiny little co. owned by a stack of multinational conglomerates, each one
larger than the one before, I don't think they were) and the vague
possibility, oh say maybe 67% chance of maybe a big eq. in oh say the next
hundred years or so, which might or might not do significant damage which
might or might not kill a few, or a lot. Not quite the clear choice you
I guess that's the type of decisions CEOs are paid to make. And the type of
political pressure they can present.
In a message dated 2/28/01 4:19:39 PM, montyh(--nospam--at)gci.net writes:
<< Given the choice of several hundred unemployed seamstresses or several
dead seamstresses, I'd choose the former. ;0)
Associated Design Consultants, Inc.
> In a message dated 2/28/01 3:19:38 PM, Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us writes:
> << Does Seattle have an ordinance for the retrofit of URM buildings?
> Well, I don't have any current information but I do know that when I was
> practicing there 20+ years ago we tried to get an old 4-story brick
> commercial building upgraded seismically and the owner (a Connecticut firm)
> said if they city required them to upgrade it they'd just shut down the firm
> and throw several hundred seamstresses out of work, which quickly ended any
> discussion of that. The owner of another similar nearby (Pioneer Square)
> building said if the city tried to force him to upgrade his building he'd
> lock it and leave it sit. That worked too (to kill that idea).
> Just a little history lesson -- capitalism in action :)
> Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
> Richmond CA