Red Zoning Disasters

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
21,380
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
Kind of a spin off of the wildfires thread. Here after cyclone Gabriel in 2023 they were talking about managed withdrawal.

Basically some small towns and areas in cities are going to struggle getting insurance. No insurance no mortgage. In sone areas central government doesn't really want yo pay for roads through terrain subject to land slips.

After the Christchurch Earthquakes the red zoned areas of the city essentially condemning all the buildings an forbidding rebuilds. Liquefaction.

I know here the popular opinion on insurance companies withdrawing from places in California and Florida is probably boo hiss. However I personally think they have recognized people shouldn't be living in certain locations.

Most of NZ is one big fault line. Local government often doesn't regulate how many people can live in certain locations except indirectly via resource consent. Some places here have put hard limits die to infrastructure limitations.

So how woukd people feel about national of local government putting hard or soft limits on where peopke can live or indirect ban by insurance companies. No insurance no construction unless you pay all costs yourself.

In USA plenty of room might revitalize the rust belt. How responsible are governments in making areas habitable if things change?
 
We need to care more about environmental limitations again and can't get away with cookie cutter construction regardless of local geography, climate, natural hazards, etc

Using state power to outright ban construction in risky areas seems like too much of a blunt tool
 
A lot depends upon the density and wealth of the population.

New Zealand is a large country and can well afford to
designate high risk areas as out of bounds for homes etc.

Others such as Bangladesh don't really have that option.
 
One step a time here.
I think you should really tackle (as in: get rid of) any subsidized disaster insurance first which incentivizes building in dangerous areas. The US has the Flood Insurance Program as one example.
Local zoning laws can also be addressed to allow for more housing in places that would be safer but otherwise disallow it because of NIMBY sensibilities. Instead of expanding into frontiers not adapted for human development just yet.
The issue will probably work itself out from there, before we talk about outright construction bans on Spectre hideouts inside volcanoes :D
 
Top Bottom