Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There have been other threads discussing the cities and states where natural disasters of all types are more likely to occur, but in your experience, do you believe that the threat of natural disasters has a large impact on whether or not people choose to move to an area or continue to live in one? If so, do you believe it is as much of a factor as availability of jobs, cost of living, etc.? If these natural disasters did not exist, do you believe the populations would be higher in these areas?
On TV yesterday there was a husband and wife tornado survivor that had their house struck two times previously, but were firm in saying that their town and home would be rebuilt again. When asked where they were staying, they said at a hotel but that they were used to it since their home had also been damaged in a fire last year.
So I would say that, at least to that couple, other considerations are more important than the repeated experience and threats of disaster.
I personally would never live in Oklahoma in a million years (I do have family from there). So to answer the question, I do not think disasters have a large impact, but are just one of many considerations made in choosing a place to live.
On TV yesterday there was a husband and wife tornado survivor that had their house struck two times previously, but were firm in saying that their town and home would be rebuilt again. When asked where they were staying, they said at a hotel but that they were used to it since their home had also been damaged in a fire last year.
So I would say that, at least to that couple, other considerations are more important than the repeated experience and threats of disaster.
I personally would never live in Oklahoma in a million years (I do have family from there). So to answer the question, I do not think disasters have a large impact, but are just one of many considerations made in choosing a place to live.
Yeah, I guess it is the value that individuals place on locations that could determine whether or not they were willing to ride out scenarios like what happened yesterday; We may not be able to predict 100 percent when a natural disaster will occur; however, the area that was hit yesterday in OK seems to have been hit pretty hard 2 other times prior to that. For me, that would be an indication that it may continue to happen that way in the future and I personally wouldn't want to be around for that.
As bad as things are in Detroit, It has to be one of the least prone cities to natural disasters in the country. No one here has to worry about their roof flying the street, the city getting buried under water or having their car destroyed by a storm. Also, when it snows, no one here has to worry about being snowed in for days or the city shutting down. Also, any droughts are very short term and no one has to worry about water shortages.
On the east coast and gulf coast, you have to worry about Hurricanes and Massive Blizzards.
On the west coast, you have to worry about Earthquakes and Wildfires.
In the Plains/Upper Midwest, you have to worry about intense thunderstorms like the ones in Oklahoma the past few days, blistering cold and massive blizzards.
In the Desert Southwest, you have to worry about water shortages.
At worst, Detroit has to worry about a meltdown of its nuclear plant (which you can technically say is a man-made disaster).
When will people learn that California isn't the only state on the west coast?
If you're going to talk only about California ... just refer to it as California.
The rest of the West Coast thanks you.
Well, that poster also said on the East Coast you have to worry about hurricanes and blizzards… Miami, for example, doesn't get blizzards while Maine doesn't get hurricanes. It seemed to me like a general example, don't take it so personally.
Serious question, is CA the only state prone to earthquakes on the west coast?
Is the Pacific NW prone to mudslides, like the one that occurred in the Seattle area not too long ago?
It depends on the area. Some don't move to the Bay Area or LA because of earthquakes. San Diego doesn't rest on the fault line, so it doesn't get the same danger of earthquakes, but we do get wildfires quite often, which scares people away. Places like Miami and New Orleans have a lot of people leaving or not moving there because of hurricanes and tropical storms. Chicago scares people away because of blizzards. People don't go to Hawaii to live because of tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. Phoenix has haboobs that scare people, and Texas has severe drought. It really depends. By and large, I think COL has more to do with people not moving to a certain place than the extreme weather/natural disasters.
In the south there are hurricanes, tornadoes in the mid west, and earthquakes in CA, but I'm from Sacramento and I've never felt an earthquake here in over 30 years, although I've heard a lot of ppl say they wouldn't move to CA because of earthquakes. I'd much rather live here than in the east coast, south or mid west that's for sure. A lot more ppl dying or losing their homes, from natural disasters, there than here. It doesn't snow here either.
Much of the earth's most intriguing scenery and topography are in areas that are most vulnerable to disaster. I just returned from a trip to the Big Island of Hawaii and it is one of the most amazing places I've ever laid eyes on. The sheer variety of terrain from lush tropical rain forests, lava rock covered deserts, high mountain summits, to black and white sand beaches are astounding. The island is also prone to catastrophic disasters with volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis just to name of few. I would never let that hold me back from experiencing and marveling some of this planet's most impressive terrain. Life is too short to miss out on those rich experiences.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 05-23-2013 at 09:16 AM..
Unless you live in a hillside residence or in exurbs, you are pretty much immune to any danger from wildfires.
I think the threat of earthquakes does keep people from moving here, but that is sort of unnecessary as they happen so rarely and really aren't that bad (typically). Of course now I've cursed myself and the big one will probably strike today
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
