Should people be allowed to live in areas known for natural disasters?

Merry - posted on 02/13/2012 ( 14 moms have responded )

9,274

169

248

I know that no matter where you live you can't always avoid some natural disasters but here in America there's areas we simply know that are having deadly disasters over and over again.

Tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, wild fires, earthquakes, etc.

Many times I see in the news people loosing their lives in these same areas over and over again to the same sort of disasters.



Now I am certain it would hardly be easy to get people to perminently not live in these areas and these areas are sometimes huge

So whether or not this is really feasible is up for interpretation. But doesn't it sound like we should learn from previous deaths and not be populating areas of repeated disasters?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Sarah - posted on 02/14/2012

629

0

83

People don't always have the choice about where to live. If you look at most disater areas globally, it is the poorest of society who live there, probably because they can't afford to live anywhere else. And in most cases they most likely can't afford insurance.

Jennifer - posted on 02/13/2012

714

1

27

I live in Oklahoma. You're talking about everyone leaving this state, Kansas and several others. The rest of the country would get very crowded. We rednecks don't do well in crowded spots! We don't mow our lawns, our houses look like abondoned shacks, we drive big ol' trucks, and keep goats and chickens in our back yards. We also got guns. Lots a guns. And we 'specially don't mix well with them Texans..................LOL!



Really tornadoes can hit anywhere at nearly any time. They do follow certain terrain features, and do hit certain areas a little more often, but it is people who are in areas that are not known for tornadoes that are in the most danger. The May 3rd tornado that hit OKC was the same size as the one that hit Joplin. We were better prepared because we expect it. We know what the wind change and drop in pressure feels like, we don't need Gary England to tell us that something is coming. We do make mistakes, and loose people, but we feel worse when we hear about people who got hit and had no idea. Oklahoma puts out a lot of oil, tons of grain, and lots of livestock. The state is needed for these things, and wind and solar power is taking off here, too. That is quite a bit to leave. We do have reasons for staying put, and we know that people think we are nuts to stay. But most of us think the people in California are nuts, earthquakes scare the bejeezus out of us!! If you doubt that, look up Oklahoma message board post from March, we got a few earth shakes, and the whole population was about to load up and move to Texas!!

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

14 Comments

View replies by

Mrs. - posted on 02/16/2012

1,767

6

30

Yeah, Jennifer, it was an intense experience being in the epi-center of that storm. I was young, but the memories of having the roof ripped off our house while we were in it....that sticks with you.



Still, like I said, if the jobs were there, I'd move back.

Tam - posted on 02/15/2012

216

2

28

I agree, Joy. And it's no simple matter to consider, either. Most places have natural disasters they are prone to experiencing.



It's more of a matter of picking your poison, honestly. For me, it's tornadoes and droughts that bring on brush fires. But I prefer that to earthquakes and hurricanes. Or blizzards.

[deleted account]

Yeah, it sounds good in theory but it's not gonna happen. Try telling the millions of residents of Florida to move or everyone on the San Andreas fault in California....not gonna happen lol I will say this though, with those two examples....I'd much rather live with hurricanes than earth quakes. You can see a hurricane coming for days and either prepare or evacuate. There's no getting away from an earth quake because it just BOOM happens.

Michelle - posted on 02/15/2012

253

5

4

I think they should be as well prepared as possible. But you would probably find that the majority of people are not overly wealthy and may not have a choice, or perhaps the nicety of the area when there is not extreme weather is worth the risk to some people.

Sherri - posted on 02/14/2012

9,593

15

387

It is not feasible and people should be able to live where ever they so choose. No it doesn't sound like we should not be populating areas of repeated disasters. Hell I live in an area that is well known for hurricanes and ice storms that knock electricity out for weeks on end and now even tornadoes. I have no intention of ever moving.

Tam - posted on 02/14/2012

216

2

28

People shouldn't be forced not to live somewhere, just because of natural disaster risk.



However, they should educate themselves, take it upon themselves to install safety measures and escape routes. And when something does happen, the onus is on them to rebuild, not me. That's what things like insurance and disaster aid is for. Might sound harsh, but it's what I've always felt and abided by myself.



The first thing that came to mind when I saw this post was the fiasco with the New Orleans debit cards that had next to no accountability, which probably set most of my opinion. Disaster relief is one thing, squandering resources is another entirely.



Sorry for the tangent. Short answer: People should live wherever they wish, and accept the risks and rewards thereof.

Jennifer - posted on 02/14/2012

714

1

27

Rebecca- I remember that one! I was very young, but we had storms for many days straight. We kept watching the skies, and little twisters hit all around us, but never where we were. As the storms moved up though, seemed like all hell's fury came loose!! Being from the midwest, you learn early where your town sits on the map, and how to read a weather chart, high and low pressure.....Plus we all have some fantasice pics of funnel clouds, and before and after!

Jakki - posted on 02/14/2012

731

11

26

But Laura there are so many different potential disasters no one can foresee them all! And it's not as if many people have a choice - take the example of Bangladesh which is so low lying that it floods regularly causing massive death and devastation. But where else would they go?



It's often about disaster readiness plans and people being educated in how to behave when disaster strikes.



Here in Australia we have a lot of people who live in heavily forested areas that can explode in flames on extremely hot windy days. In some cases there is only one road in and out of the area, so people really are trapped. However, a bush fire usually takes place with some warning - people can evacuate given enough time. And they ALL should have house insurance so that they can rebuild afterwards.



But on thing- why do people live on floodplains or right next to the ocean on sandy spits that will go under if there's a big wave.

Mrs. - posted on 02/13/2012

1,767

6

30

Okay, having grown up in Nebraska, being a survivor of a well known tornado outbreak in 1980, having most of my family be from Kansas, I think I can speak on this.



I love the Great Plains, it is where my family settled, it is where my great-great grandfather raised cattle and made his fortune (which subsequent generations wasted). There is no where else that I've ever travelled that makes me feel as relaxed as standing in an open field, in the summer, looking over the broadest sky possible.



So, I guess what I'm saying is that, it isn't just economics keeping people in these places. It is a sense of home, family and belonging that outweighs the given danger of living in tornado alley.



To be honest, if there was anything for me career wise in those places I grew up, where my family is from - I'd be back there.



Midwesterners are a different breed. I'm proud to be from there and I know many people feel the same way - tornadoes or not.

Amy - posted on 02/13/2012

6,420

33

2384

People may not have a choice to live outside these disaster areas because as you stated employment, family, cost of living in these areas. Most people who live there know what risk it is to stay there, and more than likely pay more for renters/homeowners insurance.



Even in areas that haven't been hit by a disaster in recent years could potentially face one of these deadly disasters. New York sits on a major fault line so it could potentially face a catastrophe from a major quake. I mean really if you think about it there really isn't that great of space that is really safe for everyone to relocate to.

Merry - posted on 02/13/2012

9,274

169

248

I know I personally wouldn't choose to live in a area where I know there's many natural disasters if at all possible but obviously people don't always have a choice of where they live so isn't there something we should do to keep people from dying for the same stuff over and over again?

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms