View Single Post
Old Posted Sep 20, 2019, 2:34 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,101
Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan View Post
As a geographer, with a focus in urban and regional planning, I wonder why people choose to remain in large, disaster-prone metro areas. I'm talking about extreme natural disasters that occur nearly every year. These extreme weather events, that are exacerbated by impervious surfaces in urban areas are obviously going to continue to occur!

What gives?

Certainly demographics play into certain populations' abilities to move out of hazardous areas, but (aside from denial of the existance of climate change) why do certain demographic groups choose to remain in such susceptible areas?

I, of course, live in a state that is highly proned to natural disasters. However, I love Alabama, I love Birmingham, and I love the Tennessee Valley. None of us can truly escape all natural disasters, but when you see the catastrophic flooding like we're seeing with Imelda, I wonder what coastal residents think when the rebuild time after time.

Is Houston just an exceptional city?

Is Miami Beach just too beautiful?

Is Charleston too precious to sacrifice?

Is New Orleans too important of a port to allow the Mississippi to run its natural course?
What do you mean "demographics play into certain populations' abilities to move out of hazardous areas"?

But we know the answer to your question:

Beauty of area
etc. etc. etc.

Norfolk floods a lot. But like 98% of the time it isn't flooded. So as with anything in life, you deal with the short stints of bullshit to enjoy the other side of the coin. For most people, for most times, life is fine in these areas. My dad's entire family lives in Miami. They seem fine. No one usually cares about crap that rarely happens(even if that "rarely happens" event is happening more).