Two related trends, one a long-time phenomenon, the other relatively recent, have coincided in a way that could potentially cause great financial harm to many homeowners. The trends: 1) East Bay home buyers tend to ignore the importance of the property’s seismic soundness, i.e., its ability to withstand an earthquake, 2) Earthquake insurance rates, always high, are now off the charts.

There have been certain constants throughout my career in real estate. One is that, for reasons I have yet to fathom, most buyers in this area show little concern about what will happen to the house they own in an earthquake.

Interestingly, I have observed this in both hot (seller’s) and down (buyer’s) markets. Having a home that will likely be standing after a sizeable earthquake does not seem to register on most people’s radar. In fact, anything to do with the unseen parts of a house, such as foundation, framing, retaining walls and drainage draws yawns at best from the average buyer.

It has been widely publicized that the Bay Area, and East Bay in particular, is due for a huge temblor within the next 30 years. Seismologists tell us history shows a pattern of violent earthquakes every 140 years on the Hayward fault. Given that the last one was in 1868, bringing us to 2008, we are overdue. When it comes, devastating shaking and widespread damage is predicted.

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey call the Hayward fault a “tectonic time bomb,” due, at any moment, for a 6.8 to 7.0 earthquake. The 1868 event is described as "one of the most destructive in California history."

Combine that with the knowledge that so many of our East Bay homes were built between the early 1900s and the late 1930s, when the quality of concrete was inconsistent and foundations were neither reinforced nor as deep as today’s standards, it becomes apparent that we have reason to worry.

Over two million people live within a few miles of the Hayward fault, but a preponderance of the ones I have met and others I have observed over the years do not speak or act as if the next "big one" will happen while they are around. Understanding this lack of interest, it is not surprising that the majority of older homes I have seen over the years have had either insufficient or no seismic upgrading.

Just the other day, I was speaking with a friend about earthquake insurance. He told me he dropped his policy about six months ago when his carrier raised the annual cost for his house from under $4000 to $10,000. At that price, he felt it made no sense for him to maintain his coverage.

Not coincidentally, our earthquake insurance invoice, due shortly from the same insurer, doubled. In both cases, the homes have been totally remodeled and have had substantial seismic work completed.

The logical thought is to look for another company who might give a better quote and my friend and I did this. In both cases, the alternative saved very little money. My wife and I have decided to switch our coverage to another, slightly less expensive company. This is to protect the sizeable equity we have in our home, which is within a half mile of the Hayward fault.

Few of my buyers obtain earthquake insurance when they purchase because, in most instances, their down payment is 30 per cent or lower and they find the high cost of insurance unreasonable for that amount of equity. From casual conversations, I can’t recall many who later took out a policy even though their equity increased.

Especially if you do not have earthquake insurance, it would be wise to hire a competent, licensed contractor, who specializes in seismic retrofitting, to upgrade your property. Although it adds to the cost, it is prudent to engage an engineer to provide structural plans for the contractor.

If you choose to buy earthquake insurance, carefully check the financial strength of the company. You want to make sure they will still be in business if they have a multitude of claims.