[adrienthebo]

> Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable?

Major earthquakes happen an order of magnitude less frequently than major storms - but there's merit to reconsidering how much infrastructure we build right next to fault lines. So, possibly?

> What about areas where forest fires are routine?

Without appropriate fire breaks or building construction, possibly - if your house and property isn't constructed to survive a wildfire, then it's _going_ to burn. We can either adapt now or pay much higher costs later.

> Flood prone areas?

Oh jeez, yes, the fact that we build in flood plains is absolutely bonkers.

> Tornado prone areas?

Maybe, but it's a much lower risk than hurricanes. We really need to account for risks during building construction; our current approaches aren't working that well.

> High UV?

High UV is a bummer, not an repeated existential risk to all inhabitants.

> Poor air quality?

Poor air quality is also a bummer but is something we have more control over. Similar to high UV, poor air quality doesn't represent a regular, frequent, unavoidable, catastrophic risk to all of the inhabitants and all property in the vicinity.

> It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time.

It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. If you can build infrastructure that'll actually last or are willing to accept all liability when the inevitable occurs then by all means, build your house on stilts and cover the cost of reconstruction. But beyond freedom of choice, I don't understand why we think it's okay to assume obvious risk and expect society to provide compensation for a risk that's been known for decades if not centuries.

[PM_me_your_math]

Who gets to defines the risk?

Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years?

The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense.

>It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century.

More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily.

Do we tell people they can't live there, either?

If you don't take any risk then you are not really living.

[smachiz]

> Who gets to defines the risk?

Free market insurance actuaries.

>Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years?

Yes, of course.

>The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense.

No, just needs more science and economics math on what makes sense and are reasonable lines to draw.

> More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily.

Do you have stats that back this up on a per capita basis?

> Do we tell people they can't live there, either?

If you can ascertain that the above is true per capita and that the federal government is footing the bill through social security survivorship benefits, maybe. The objection is not that people can't live and where they want - it's that they expect someone else to subsidize it.

Life insurance takes into account where you live. In non-FEMA flood insurance areas, flood insurance is significantly more expensive.

>If you don't take any risk then you are not really living.

The issue is they aren't taking risks - they're socializing their risks onto people who don't live in flood zones.

If they were actually taking the risk of having to rebuild, we wouldn't be having this conversation.