That is a bit scary, I live alongside the same hillside within a mile.

There is also a major lawsuit going on between the homeowner's insurance company and the property developer up the hill whose poor practices for stabilizing the slope led to the mud slump that destroyed the house. It is scary. I live down the hill from that house within two blocks of me.

What, they never heard of the Rebuilding Center? http://www.rebuildingcenter.org/deconstruct/index.html

Too bad. There was probably a good deal of usable material there that could have been recycled. Perhaps it was too unstale to be "deconstucted". The rebuilding center is a great organization. I personally have used their demo services and bought stuff there too.

Boy I thought we had building codes and goverment inspectors to prevent things like this. Was I ever wrong or what.

I thought we had building codes and goverment inspectors to prevent things like this.

For the past decade or so, and especially during and since the M37 era, threats from the likes of OIA over takings has technically rendered almost every urban lot, even those in protective overlay zones, buildable - given enough will. Some parts of a development's impact can be estimated pretty well - for example, impervious area added from structures and paved areas. But ground stability in the presence of soil disturbance and altered drainage is one of those things that isn't an exact science, and this has been known well before this study. And the job of planning departments has furthermore evolved to mostly mean minimizing impact to the public during construction phases, not to say whether it should be done or not.

Buyer beware. Slope hazard information is available online here.

Sorry, first link was bad. Look here.

John,
That opening statement is completely made up.
That is such bunk. There hasn't been ANY shift or relaxing since the M37 era at all, period.
And no threats from OIA and strong will mean anything.
The current building codes and engineering requirements for building on slopes are very extensive (have been for years) which makes this occurance a very rare event.

Have you built on a slope recently?

The house was built to the strict LO code. The problem wasn't with the house, its site, or anything else related to the house. It was the result of a builder on the upper slope who had improperly cleared one of his three lots, did not properly plan for or manage runoff, and blocked one of the large French drains our homeowners' association had installed when our subdivision was built. The house that collapsed was on the only block that is not part of our subdivision or Homeowners' Association. Neither the owner of the house demolished, nor the builder of said house, or the City of Lake Oswego are responsible for this disaster. The fault lies entirely with the builder above and it will, ultimately, be his insurance company that will pay the demolition costs and rebuilding costs. The site is not unbuildable, although I'd certainly be circumspect about rebuilding in the same location. Once bitten, twice shy as they say.

There hasn't been ANY shift or relaxing since the M37 era at all, period.

I included "during" [the M37 era] as well as "since" in my statement for the reason you cite - there hasn't been much change since M49. The COP e-zone regulations went into effect in the 90's I believe, and essentially everything that was zoned residential beforehand, still was considered buildable afterward, regardless of slope hazards. That was a political decision that is now proving to have real consequences.

...no threats from OIA and strong will mean anything

They did then. I would again agree that the tables have turned a bit since M49. But we still have this legacy of buildable lots in slope hazard zones from that era.

The current building codes and engineering requirements for building on slopes are very extensive (have been for years)

But the failure in this case was the slope in the back of the house.

which makes this occurance a very rare event.

Thet are becoming less rare.

Have you built on a slope recently?

Yes (actually, it was built on spec by a developer, not me) in 2002 - condo built into a hillside with a 50 degree slope. We'll see if it holds - the place up the street under construction isn't doing so well. Thus, my "buyer beware" caution.

I still don't fully understand why most insurance policies don't cover landslide losses. That seems like such a basic thing for insurance to cover, particularly if you live anywhere near a slope. That house that slid down the hill in SW PDX ended with the same result, as I recall, with insurance denying the claim. Isn't this the kind of catastrophic loss that is the reason banks require us to have homeowner's insurance?

It's most likely because a large-scale event like an earthquake can't easily be separable from a small one like a landslide - the latter often triggered by the former. Insurance companies don't like large-scale events - as witnessed by their hardball tactics they used in settling losses in New Orleans.

Miles, the insurance agents like to use the term "moral hazard" -- meaning, essentially, if you will insure stupidity, you encourage stupidity by separating the practice of it from its reward. We not only shouldn't encourage insurance to cover some kinds of losses, we should forbid it (such as forbidding issuance of flood policies for structures in flood plains).

This case is troublesome only because the stupid actor was not the one whose house got leveled -- but, thanks to the trial lawyers we hear so much hatred towards -- the damaged homeowners should be able to put the burden where it belongs (the upslope builder).