is really a question of accessibility to financing to get the work done.
The cost can be amortized and charged to the tenants, but this may result
in the loss of occupants and the inability to restore use of the building
if the leasable space is too high for the area. I?m not specifically speaking
of Paso Robles, but of other areas where Cities own some of the buildings
and are attempting to establish either Entitlement Zones (where the State
of California provides tax breaks and money for new business to lease these
buildings) or an Empowerment Zone (where the Federal Government offers
the tax advantages in leasable space and in salary compensation).
either the State or the Feds can insure use of the building and a growing
economy in areas that are hard hit or low income, then the State can not
demand implementation of a retrofit ordinance or demand that the work be
done ? it becomes a hardship.
Cratylus Consulting Group [mailto:cratylus(--nospam--at)earthlink.net]
Wednesday, December 24, 2003 8:06 PM
Re: Paso Robles Earthquake
would be disappointed in the California Legislature if the intent of SB547
was to allow a 20 year grace period to implement seismic safety!
would have thought that SB547 (mid 1980s) would have required Paso
Robles to inventory their URMs and
establish an ordinance.
If I recall the legislation correctly,
I believe that the timeline for
compliance passed years ago.
Perhaps they do have an ordinance,
but a few buildings slipped through!
the Wednesday, December 24, 2003, copy of the Tribune (San Luis Obispo
paper), page B2;
"Paso Robles is home to
43 unreinforced masonry buildings that pose a medium to high risk of being
damaged during an earthquake. While these structures must be retrofitted
by 2008, according to a city ordinance, other buildings that pose a less
of a threat have until 2018."