4 ms·
I'd go even farther: a lot of people should not be living where they are living. If insurers won't cover you you should not be living in an area with {fire, flo
by v77 7y ago
I'd go even farther: a lot of people should not be living where they are living. If insurers won't cover you you should not be living in an area with {fire, flood, hurrican} risk as you have transferred the cost of your lifestyle choice to the public.
- pcwalton 7y agoThis is important. Poor land use policies in California are possibly a bigger contributor to the problem than anything else. They impact our ability to do controlled burns, for example: the biggest obstacle to controlled burns is health effects, which happen because the number of wilderness-urban areas is way too large in this state.
- SilasX 7y agoI agree. Utilities should be billed in a way so that more expensive distribution costs for more remote areas are borne by those who live in such areas; if that makes living out there while connected to the grid infeasible, then people shouldn't do it. I can understand subsidized infra for rural farms as a matter of food security policy[1], maybe. But these home aren't that, they're more "cottage in the mountains" kind of deal. [1] That is, not endorsing it, but considering it credible enough to file under "reasonable people can disagree".
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rhacker 7y agoI think a lot of people are going to read: "they're not going to be able to build there anymore" but the reality is - the same land will be used, but it will be massively terraformed. It won't change where we're allowed to build, it will change how many changes we need to make before the build can start.