> but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there [..] those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there
The problem with this logic is that there are extremely few (if any) locations in the United States that aren't affected by severe natural events (blizzards, heat waves, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, earthquakes, etc). I live in one of the more moderate locations in the USA (western MA) and in the past 11 months we've had an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, an ice storm that left much of the region without power for about a week,and 80 inches of snow in February alone.
We all subsidize each other - maybe you had more moderate weather this year while we got whacked, but the situation could reverse itself next year.
The problem with this logic is that there are extremely few (if any) locations in the United States that aren't affected by severe natural events (blizzards, heat waves, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, earthquakes, etc). I live in one of the more moderate locations in the USA (western MA) and in the past 11 months we've had an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, an ice storm that left much of the region without power for about a week,and 80 inches of snow in February alone.
We all subsidize each other - maybe you had more moderate weather this year while we got whacked, but the situation could reverse itself next year.