Require owners to strengthen old buildings at risk of collapse by a deadline, and bar them from renting out any that miss it
In short
- Strengthening old, collapse-prone buildings is no longer left to the voluntary effort of owners.
- Owners of buildings where people live or work must finish the strengthening by the deadline.
- A building that is still not strengthened after the deadline cannot be rented to people or used for a shop.
- Owners without money get a public loan that they can repay when they sell the building.
- The inspection results are posted at the building's entrance so renters can see how dangerous it is.
If this comes true
The morning after a huge earthquake, residents of an apartment building that has been strengthened sweep up broken dishes, go outside, and check with one another that every old building on the street is still standing.
Perhaps
Retired residents living on a pension might be pushed out to the edge of town from an old apartment building whose rent went up to cover the cost of strengthening.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers existing buildings that are highly likely to collapse or be badly damaged by earthquakes, strong winds, floods and the like, and it makes owners responsible for strengthening them. First, public money pays for a survey that uses the strength of disasters that could strike each area to identify buildings put up under old standards or built in a fragile way. Among the buildings the survey judges dangerous, the owners of those where people live, those where people work, and those where many people gather, such as shops and schools, must finish strengthening to a set standard by a deadline decided according to the building's size and use. A building that is still not strengthened after the deadline is banned from being newly rented out or used as a shop or office, and even if the owner lives in it, this fact is recorded in the sale and inheritance records. For owners who cannot pay for the work, a public body lends money at a low interest rate, to be repaid in one sum when the building is sold or inherited. So that renters do not lose their homes during the work, the cost of temporary housing is shared between the owner and public funds, and evictions because of the work are not allowed. The judgment and the state of the strengthening are shown at the building's entrance and in a public register. For historic buildings, a separate strengthening standard is set to keep their outward appearance.
BenefitsFewer buildings that kill people in disasters, before the disaster comes
Making strengthening a duty with a deadline reaches owners who did not move when only subsidies were offered. Because the consequence of not being able to rent is clear, not strengthening becomes a loss for owners, and the most dangerous buildings get fixed first. With fewer buildings collapsing, far fewer people should be killed or hurt by being trapped under them in a disaster. If buildings stay standing, roads are not blocked and rescue arrives sooner, residents can keep living at home instead of in shelters, and shops can reopen quickly. That also means less of the huge public money spent on rebuilding after disasters, and fewer years of life in temporary housing. The loan that is repaid at sale also opens a way for elderly owners with no cash on hand to go ahead with strengthening without any burden during their lifetimes. And if renters can learn the danger at the building's entrance, they will no longer be left to pick a dangerous room without knowing it, relying on cheapness alone.
DrawbacksCheap housing shrinks, and poorer people are pushed out first
The cost of strengthening ends up added to rents and building prices. Old, dangerous buildings are often the cheapest housing in town, and once strengthened they become safer but may come to cost more than the low-income people living there now can pay. If owners choose to tear down and rebuild instead of strengthening, old streets that have lasted for years and lanes lined with small shops will turn into expensive new buildings. Even with a loan repaid at sale, when the cost of strengthening is greater than the building's value, or in apartment buildings with so many owners that they cannot agree, the work may miss the deadline and the number of empty buildings that cannot be rented may grow. Moreover, in areas where many homes were built without formal permission, almost no one can meet the duty even if it is imposed, and the rule could become a tool that corners residents. Even a strengthened building cannot withstand a disaster far beyond what was expected, so it is also a reality that must be accepted that safety is not guaranteed even after spending a great deal.
Learn the background
In a big disaster, what kills people is usually not the shaking or the wind itself but buildings that collapse. More countries now set strict standards for new buildings, but many buildings put up before those standards are still in use, and many young people who choose cheap housing, elderly people living on pensions, and people running small shops live and work in them. The methods of strengthening are known, yet little gets done, because the owner has to pay the cost right now, nobody knows when a disaster will come, and the people who die when a building falls are the ones renting it. For an owner, if strengthening does not allow a large rent increase, doing nothing ends up being the better deal. Many countries have called on owners to strengthen by offering subsidies, but only owners with money to spare come forward, and the most dangerous buildings have been put off the longest. After a disaster, public money supports rebuilding, so owners who did not prepare beforehand do not bear the cost of that, and this setup has also blocked change.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes