11 ms·

How about just stop building houses near places where they're going to light on fire? And stop building them on floodplains while we're at it. Or anywhere else

How about just stop building houses near places where they're going to light on fire? And stop building them on floodplains while we're at it. Or anywhere else that, you know, is a bloody stupid place to put a house. It's not like there's no room to put them in a more sensible place. If you know it's not just possible but likely that the house will be seriously damaged or destroyed within ten years or so, it's probably best not to build it. Madness.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
Good point. Areas around major faultlines should be off limits too.
- kbenson 11y ago
  There are good reasons to build in some of the areas that are prone to disasters. Much of the west coast is fault lines, but there are extremely lucrative ports there as well. I think the real problem is that the people are bad at planning for things that happen on the timescale of many types of disasters, so we need to combat this deficiency. E.g. Requiring insurance for disaster areas over a certain level, pseudo-pooling by level to increase cost for worse areas, etc. The big problem is the existing populace, which may be priced out of their homes. You could probably ameliorate those problems by only enforcing the new requirements on sale/inheritance of existing homes or new buildings. Eventually the market will adjust.
wallyhs 11y ago
Say I build a house in a town near a forest in Idaho. Now, there are 20,000,000 acres of national forest in Idaho of which 200,000 are currently burning. So only 1% of the forest is burning and mostly in remote locations in which there are no roads. Even if one of the fires happens to be near me, I am not too worried: I have a metal roof and a fuel-free buffer zone around the house. Additionally, the local fire department has my back. This is a one-time event for me, because the same forest won't burn again in my lifetime. The chance of my house being destroyed by a wildfire in any ten-year period is practically zero. Note that high deserts also burn, and the wind moves those fires along at a frightening pace. Forest and desert are pretty much the only choices in places like Idaho or Montana.

waterlesscloud 11y ago

Good point. Areas around major faultlines should be off limits too.

kbenson 11y ago
There are good reasons to build in some of the areas that are prone to disasters. Much of the west coast is fault lines, but there are extremely lucrative ports there as well. I think the real problem is that the people are bad at planning for things that happen on the timescale of many types of disasters, so we need to combat this deficiency. E.g. Requiring insurance for disaster areas over a certain level, pseudo-pooling by level to increase cost for worse areas, etc. The big problem is the existing populace, which may be priced out of their homes. You could probably ameliorate those problems by only enforcing the new requirements on sale/inheritance of existing homes or new buildings. Eventually the market will adjust.

wallyhs 11y ago

Say I build a house in a town near a forest in Idaho. Now, there are 20,000,000 acres of national forest in Idaho of which 200,000 are currently burning. So only 1% of the forest is burning and mostly in remote locations in which there are no roads. Even if one of the fires happens to be near me, I am not too worried: I have a metal roof and a fuel-free buffer zone around the house. Additionally, the local fire department has my back. This is a one-time event for me, because the same forest won't burn again in my lifetime. The chance of my house being destroyed by a wildfire in any ten-year period is practically zero. Note that high deserts also burn, and the wind moves those fires along at a frightening pace. Forest and desert are pretty much the only choices in places like Idaho or Montana.