That entire area is clearly not fit for human habitation, stop letting them build in dangerous areas.
I'm not sure that's the correct take-away. I think you had in correct in the second sentence.
Do not rebuild in the exact same place, in the exact same way
If your area is a fire-prone, then yes I think you should be allowed to build there. However, your house better have taken into account fire. Whether it means you can't build houses within an acre of another or it has to be all stone, idk let qualified people figure out the requirements. But eventually everywhere in the US will have been hit by a natural disaster and the rule can't be you can't re-build, it just needs to be you need to account for what is likely to happen.
As to flooding, I don't know the specifics but if instead of rebuilding the same you put the house on stilts so just the staircase floods out every couple of years I think it's fine.
Comments
I'm not sure that's the correct take-away. I think you had in correct in the second sentence.
If your area is a fire-prone, then yes I think you should be allowed to build there. However, your house better have taken into account fire. Whether it means you can't build houses within an acre of another or it has to be all stone, idk let qualified people figure out the requirements. But eventually everywhere in the US will have been hit by a natural disaster and the rule can't be you can't re-build, it just needs to be you need to account for what is likely to happen.
As to flooding, I don't know the specifics but if instead of rebuilding the same you put the house on stilts so just the staircase floods out every couple of years I think it's fine.