Who is Leaving the Bay Area Due to Years of Wildfire Smoke? (San Diego: insurance, vacation home)

[jhoffschein]

I'm a life-long Bay Area resident who thought I would spend my whole life here, but the years of toxic wildfire smoke and evacuation orders are too much, given that experts say this will continue for the next 20 years while the authorities thin out the forests. In the meantime, wildfire smoke shaves years off our lives. There is an article in the Atlantic Monthly this month from a Bay Area native saying her family is leaving the Bay Area due to the repeated fires, but I'm surprised that so few people are announcing that they're leaving. Also, how long will companies stay in the Bay Area when their employees have to live in such unhealthy conditions? I'm sure their executives don't want to live here and have their children develop life-long health problems as a result, and beyond that, it's proven that employee productivity suffers as a result of wildfire smoke, which causes fatigue and brain fog.

I'm heart-broken to leave. This is my home and I love it, but not enough to continue to risk my life due to the fires themselves, or the long-term effects of the smoke. Please let me know if you or someone you know is leaving the Bay Area for the same reasons. Thank you.

[Ruth4Truth]

Probably a lot of the people who haven't considered leaving, live in parts of the Bay that haven't had fires. What part of the Bay do you live in, OP? A friend of mine who was living in Marin, left last winter with his family, and arrived in Minneapolis just months ahead of the riots. He actually left MN in the middle of the mayhem, and is now in Arizona trying to figure out where he wants to spend the rest of his life.

The people I know, who have always called the Bay Area home, wouldn't have any idea where to go, if they were to relocate. Where would you suggest to move to, that doesn't have fires, isn't at risk of future water shortages, doesn't have earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and would only be minimally affected by sea level rise? I think I recall an article saying, that climatologists agree, that the Upper Midwest is the one minimal-risk region. Shall we all move there?

Here are climate-change disaster maps for the US. There's an interactive map, that lets you click on a county, to get a list of the different climate-change threats and their risk rating for a given county. Take your pick.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-climate.html

[Hemlock140]

Interesting map. In our county the only one rated more than medium is "extreme rainfall" which is definitely an issue in the lowlands, which include Seattle, but we are at the highest point on a plateau at 600'. We obviously have no water shortages with 60" of rain annually, no hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, or sea level rise issues at our elevation. It's really only earthquakes to worry about, and coming from CA we have earthquake insurance. We do have some smoke blown in, even from the CA and Oregon fires, but fortunately it doesn't last long with the rain to wash it away.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by jhoffschein

I'm a life-long Bay Area resident who thought I would spend my whole life here, but the years of toxic wildfire smoke and evacuation orders are too much, given that experts say this will continue for the next 20 years while the authorities thin out the forests. In the meantime, wildfire smoke shaves years off our lives. There is an article in the Atlantic Monthly this month from a Bay Area native saying her family is leaving the Bay Area due to the repeated fires, but I'm surprised that so few people are announcing that they're leaving. Also, how long will companies stay in the Bay Area when their employees have to live in such unhealthy conditions? I'm sure their executives don't want to live here and have their children develop life-long health problems as a result, and beyond that, it's proven that employee productivity suffers as a result of wildfire smoke, which causes fatigue and brain fog.

I'm heart-broken to leave. This is my home and I love it, but not enough to continue to risk my life due to the fires themselves, or the long-term effects of the smoke. Please let me know if you or someone you know is leaving the Bay Area for the same reasons. Thank you.

We're contemplating the same, but haven't settled on this. We also want to see what plays out over the next 6-9 months on the COVID situation and the work from home options. Are companies going to adopt this more commonly as a permanent offering or is this going to change when COVID is over? If its the latter, we may be tied here due to our current jobs and prevalence of other jobs, TBD. It does give us a lot of food for thought though, in terms of whether we'd want to buy a vacation home elsewhere to spend a lot of time.

With this in mind, where are you considering moving? It seems that the fires/smoke aren't just a Bay Area problem, but are becoming more and more common across the entire West, even the Pac NW.

Other parts of the country, you have issues like Tornadoes in the Midwest, Hurricanes on the Gulf Coast and East Coast, etc. Where is it that you think will provide a better quality of life and may be less affected with climate change? I'm curious to know.

[evening sun]

The Midwest also has ice & snow storms. I know people who have lost family to traffic accidents due to the ice. I am just going to stay where I am. Nowhere is perfect or 100% safe.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Probably a lot of the people who haven't considered leaving, live in parts of the Bay that haven't had fires. What part of the Bay do you live in, OP? A friend of mine who was living in Marin, left last winter with his family, and arrived in Minneapolis just months ahead of the riots. He actually left MN in the middle of the mayhem, and is now in Arizona trying to figure out where he wants to spend the rest of his life.

The people I know, who have always called the Bay Area home, wouldn't have any idea where to go, if they were to relocate. Where would you suggest to move to, that doesn't have fires, isn't at risk of future water shortages, doesn't have earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes, and would only be minimally affected by sea level rise? I think I recall an article saying, that climatologists agree, that the Upper Midwest is the one minimal-risk region. Shall we all move there?

Here are climate-change disaster maps for the US. There's an interactive map, that lets you click on a county, to get a list of the different climate-change threats and their risk rating for a given county. Take your pick.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e-climate.html

Half the areas with "hurricane risk" are really only at risk in the loosest possible sense. If that's the level of 'caution' applied across the board, I'd take that map with a large grain of salt.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

Half the areas with "hurricane risk" are really only at risk in the loosest possible sense. If that's the level of 'caution' applied across the board, I'd take that map with a large grain of salt.

Its probably relative risk. Here in the Bay Area, the likelihood of a wildfire hitting your particular area at any given time is probably pretty low. However, it is much higher in rural parts of Sonoma County compared to national averages.

[sav858]

I would if I could. Basically my jobs keeps me here. I'm so tired of this, the Bay Area is such an unlivable mess now. I'd move back down San Diego in a heartbeat if I could. Even with all of their wildfires they don't get weeks and weeks of heavy, thick smoke like this.

Playgrounds are finally open and I can't really even take the kids to their favorite ones now until the air clears.

I hate this place so much.

[clongirl]

I never would have considered leaving my beloved home state--but the daily choking air and serious health issues, and major concerns about my own house being affected have gotten me thinking about the Pacific Northwest---I don't know anyone there and yeah--I realize fire is affecting these states also, but its scary to be reminded daily for the past several months that this is indeed getting worse with no sight of it getting better. I live in Lamorinda and there have already been fires too close for comfort. We have monthly fire drills/virtual evacuations now. It's a real and serious threat. From Santa Cruz to Napa to Vacaville, Oakland, Pleasanton to San Mateo. There's no place that isn't in danger from climate change and wildfires.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Its probably relative risk. Here in the Bay Area, the likelihood of a wildfire hitting your particular area at any given time is probably pretty low. However, it is much higher in rural parts of Sonoma County compared to national averages.

Well I live in the D.C. area and have technically been hit by tropical storms and hurricane remnants but it's just a rainy day with some wind (less than during most t-storms). In a worst case scenario, there'd be localized flooding (just like after severe storms in the spring/summer) and tree damage. I don't see hurricanes as a major risk outside of areas prone to flooding in any excessive rain scenario.



That map shows areas in Michigan as having hurricane risk. Because once in a blue moon a hurricane tracks north from the Gulf Coast? By the time that hurricane gets to Michigan it's an extra-tropical cyclone with rain i.e. the type of storm that hits Northern areas all the time without much effect. I certainly don't think anyone in Michigan loses sleep at night over hurricanes.