--- Isn’t it urgent to replace the Civic Center to protect the safety of Newark residents? ---

The City will have much more bigger issues to deal with than buildings in case of an earthquake

The rebuttal argument states:  The fact is that the Civic Center needs to be replaced urgently to protect the safety of Newark residents.

There are five problems with the government's argument that there is an urgent need for the replacement of the Civic Center. 

1.  Loma Prieta in 1989 forced Fremont out of their City Hall. Strangely enough, our City Hall remained standing and usable for decades after. It still remains usable.

2. The city has already approved projects where the safety of Newark residents has been put at risk. Take for instance the approval of Area 3/Sanctuary housing project where homes will be built over a state designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone.

3. Our mayor seemingly failed to mention the supposedly “urgent” need to replace the buildings in his April 21, 2016 state of the city address. Why did this suddenly become an urgent issue requiring action? http://www.newark.org/departments/city-of-newark/2016-state-of-city-address/

4. If the government wanted to reflect sound fiscal stewardship, they would temporarily rent out of an empty technology building or any other empty building throughout the City (there are many) and provide a tax rebate with the landowner, while saving money for new buildings to minimize the burden placed on Newark residents (which includes seniors and low-income residents). But make the suggestion and it is likely the government will change their tune on the urgency of the situation

5. If the City wants to protect its buildings, it should look into earthquake insurance.

Take me back to the Table of Contents