Yes they should. The last thing we need is the government telling us where we can or can’t hang our hats.

So long as the dangers are clearly communicated we should have the right to purchase property where we choose.

Clearly it depends on the level of the danger. If someone was to propose moving in to a beach, shipping in a portable house during low tide, only to have it washed away during high tide, the government would no doubt step in to prevent this madness.

On the other hand, every house in the country faces an environmental danger of one kind or another and we have to build somewhere.

The argument that people should be able to build wherever they want and the government should just stay out of it doesn’t work because human nature is such that we will (and should) always do what we can to help people in a time of need. So people who foolishly put themselves in need are just taking advantage of our natural instincts. Even if they legitimately want society to just leave them to die/go bankrupt in the case of a disaster, wanting something doesn’t change human nature.

Adventure seekers who screw up deserve to be rescued - obviously. If their actions (or selection of place to live in spite of very obvious warning signs)requires the saving of their asses, then they should be responsible for the cost of such assistance. IMHO.

I agree Declan. That is what insurance is for.

Do we stop building trailer parks because of tornados? ;)

We can also throw in a curve ball. Some of these “potential environmental danger zones” became that way only after humans mucked with them.

Generally, I support restrictions on building in floodplains, but I don’t think we’re going to make existing towns in regularly flooded areas pick up and leave are we?

As potentially bad as it may sound just possibly the government of the country where said flood plains exist should in fact say, ‘build here if ya want, but don’t come looking for a federal bail out when you flood again, and again, and again because we have other things that can be done with our resources.’

Do we stop building trailer parks because of tornados?

That’s not the question, the question should be ‘Should we allow tralor parks to be built in tornado alley?’

If we take the example of New Orleans and move it North, should we ban people from living in Richmond, BC, which is below sea level, on the ocean and remains livable by virtue of a system of Dykes to keep the ocean at bay?

If Richmond BC is regularily susceptible to being hit by weather events that wipe it out then we most certainly should take the time to consider whether or not it is worth rebuilding after it is - or is it more reasonable to help it rebuild itself a few times so that the inevitable can happen again?