I'm talking about people who don't want to abandon their homes. Insurance issues are a financial aspect of that, but it's not what I'm responding to.
is that if the government wasn't providing insurance, the cost of it would be so prohibitively expensive that most waterfront development would cease. Only the mega-rich would be able to afford living there.
As to your point, yes it is heartless to mock people who have lived in a region for generations for not wanting to leave. We used to admire the pluck of those who shrugged off whatever bad hand life dealt them and persevered. Too bad we stopped.
Specifically the rural and the suburbs areas of California which are at more risk but also do not pay more money for development with higher rates on electricity and so on?
https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1187427061884956674
Mookie why aren't you using the same logic about the California fires? From an observation and logic standpoint the same logic applies, but we humans are flawed creatures and we do not always have perfect logic and perfect observation and thus we are oblivious to our own superficial use of logic and our superficial use of observation.
We scapegoat easy targets but we do not scapegoat other people who are equally as guilty. And if we are all guilty what is the point of using the "guilty vs not-guilty" framework instead of pivoting and shifting towards a framework of mutual care, mutual responsibility, and creating systems that are flexible but also should be responding to the problems before we get a disaster of the commons? [Yes Tragedy of the Commons is the more correct idiom, but I prefer disaster here, a sudden event, a castrophre, sent from the heavens as in disaster aka dis-astro.)
We humans are no different than the people in the BC times, when a disaster occurs we either blame the gods, or we blame the worse among us who just suffered a tragedy and said it was your own god-damned fault and thus god will now punish you for your hubris.
