|
|
|
|
|
|
by avidiax
491 days ago
|
|
|
> It's not exactly fair to treat those rural residents as burdens to the urban areas when they provide the means for the urban areas to exist. There's a difference between people that are in farming/ranching and industry vs. people that are rural to afford a more lavish home in the woods or on the hills. Even still, a system that doesn't appropriately price and apportion risk will always be under pressure. |
|
|
Very well stated, I am stealing this. Also in agreement with rural resource types vs rich rural.
Again I think it is more complex than just apportioning power costs. CA effectively has a state policy of not maintaining its forest/rural land (ditto feds and their land). My parents live adjacent to national forest and have fire evacuations nearly every year.
There is nothing that the rural residents in their area can do to mitigate risk, even at their own cost. So we're asking them to bear the cost of the state/fed policy decisions. This is exactly the problem you describe of inappropriate price/risk apportionment.