3 ms·

Not all valleys are equally dangerous. The question is why people build new on known dangerous places. The new is an important word. They do because the future

by srean 2mo ago

Not all valleys are equally dangerous. The question is why people build new on known dangerous places. The new is an important word. They do because the future is not priced in (make insurance mandatory?) and because of acts of corruption that actively promote/incentivize development in hazardous areas by rewriting zoning, repricing permits, rewriting saner policies.

newsclues 2mo ago
Have you ever been in a river valley in a mountainous region? Hard to build on the mountain, and the valley has transportation, easier to build, fertile land, food and water. It’s very obvious why humans settle where they do (despite the risks).
- srean 2mo ago
  > Have you ever been in a river valley in a mountainous region? Brought up there.
- pmontra 2mo ago
  And all the good places have been taken centuries ago.
  - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
    And most of this "well obviously nobody should build anywhere where there will be serious destruction every couple generations" type sentiment ultimately just to funnels wealth and power to whoever took that good land previously.
    - pmontra 2mo ago
      If there is serious distruction every couple of generations it happens either to you or to your children. So, do you really want to build our buy there? If it happened to your parents there is no you. Every five or ten generations, different risk.
pmontra 2mo ago
Some people's job is building new houses to sell them. Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas. Usually there is no point working unless it's for money so take your guess. BTW, I can't build anything in half of my garden unless I also build huge concrete structures to anchor the terrain, which maybe would make matters worse. My house has been there for about 100 years, the other houses too, maybe it's stable enough but often they allow what's already there and deny anything new. Anyway, it's fine, I don't want to build something there.
- srean 2mo ago
  > Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas No that is not my question at all. In fact I don't have a question, I have a position. My position is that population density in many of these super dangerous areas is because of corruption laced government policies and practices. The government follows these policies in concert with builders because they can knowingly profit from endangering people (i) in dire straits, (ii) people who are not informed about magnitude of the risks. In addition to that their corrupt practices distort the market prices so that people end up suckered. If these corrupt practices were to stop or reduce and better more people friendly policies were followed then these place will not become uninhabited but plausible less populated. If you look at my other comments on this story you will get more details of my position. Some people are in such dire straits that they may still agree to stay in a hazard equivalent to living on Chernobyl lands. Some who are more fortunate would take other options should the government be doing their job.

by srean 2mo ago

newsclues 2mo ago

Have you ever been in a river valley in a mountainous region? Hard to build on the mountain, and the valley has transportation, easier to build, fertile land, food and water. It’s very obvious why humans settle where they do (despite the risks).

srean 2mo ago
> Have you ever been in a river valley in a mountainous region? Brought up there.
pmontra 2mo ago
And all the good places have been taken centuries ago.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago
  And most of this "well obviously nobody should build anywhere where there will be serious destruction every couple generations" type sentiment ultimately just to funnels wealth and power to whoever took that good land previously.
  - pmontra 2mo ago
    If there is serious distruction every couple of generations it happens either to you or to your children. So, do you really want to build our buy there? If it happened to your parents there is no you. Every five or ten generations, different risk.

pmontra 2mo ago

Some people's job is building new houses to sell them. Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas. Usually there is no point working unless it's for money so take your guess. BTW, I can't build anything in half of my garden unless I also build huge concrete structures to anchor the terrain, which maybe would make matters worse. My house has been there for about 100 years, the other houses too, maybe it's stable enough but often they allow what's already there and deny anything new. Anyway, it's fine, I don't want to build something there.

srean 2mo ago
> Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas No that is not my question at all. In fact I don't have a question, I have a position. My position is that population density in many of these super dangerous areas is because of corruption laced government policies and practices. The government follows these policies in concert with builders because they can knowingly profit from endangering people (i) in dire straits, (ii) people who are not informed about magnitude of the risks. In addition to that their corrupt practices distort the market prices so that people end up suckered. If these corrupt practices were to stop or reduce and better more people friendly policies were followed then these place will not become uninhabited but plausible less populated. If you look at my other comments on this story you will get more details of my position. Some people are in such dire straits that they may still agree to stay in a hazard equivalent to living on Chernobyl lands. Some who are more fortunate would take other options should the government be doing their job.