From: ryeung@earthlink.net (Raymond Yeung)
Newsgroups: alt.building.construction ca.earthquakes misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Earthquake considerations in House Hunting
Date: 8 Oct 2004 08:07:20 -0700

> There's a misconception there: very few houses cost half to one
> million. But the property might. As I used to tell people in Palo
> Alto, no, youdidn't pay $600,000 for this house; you paid about
> $120,000 for the house and about $480,000 for the ground it's
> sitting on. That's why people are so willing to buy a really cute
> house and lot for $500,000 and then tear the house down and build
> a new one.
> 

Okay, I suppose that's the good news.  If the house is totaled, it'd
cost about $120,000 to rebuild?  And I suppose such a devastating 
event would have little impact to subsequent resale value of the
property?  I'd suppose people might be hesitant in buying a land upon
which a house had previously been shaken down.
 
> You can't really post-tension a wooden structure. post-tenisionig
> is usually done by embedding reinforcing bars in concrete and
> then tightenign giant nuts at the ends after the concrete sets.
> 

So is there any new benefit the P/T method to the consumers like us?  Or
is it just marketing hype (they think P/T is a cute term that grabs
attention)?