St Louis, Atlanta, Austin, Phoenix, albequerque.
None of these have the climate of San Francisco, but certainly livable.
None of these have the climate of San Francisco, but certainly livable.
Phoenix (and Albuquerque but I'm less familiar with the specifics) is in the desert; both the water it gets and the ambient temperature are getting worse due to climate change. There are already legal fights over water rights in the greater Phoenix area, and it's just going to get worse. That is not a place to be building up.
One recent example: https://kjzz.org/content/1847190/scottsdale-wants-governor-v...
> Scottsdale cut off Rio Verde Foothills from water sales in January due to worsening drought conditions. That left hundreds of homes in the unincorporated community without a reliable water source.
> Arizona lawmakers earlier this week sent a bill to the governor’s desk that would force Scottsdale to resume sales, for at least a few years while the community works out a long-term solution. But in a letter to the governor, Scottsdale’s mayor and City Council say the bill penalizes their city for sensible water management.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands...
> The bill requires the city to deliver at least 150 acre-feet to its standpipe each year, through 2025, unless outside circumstances reduce whatever source they use for it. And Scottsdale can’t charge Rio Verde Foothills residents more than $20 per 1,000 gallons for that water.
And the letter from the City of Scottsdale to the governor: https://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/ScottsdaleAZ/News/News+I...
How many people died? How many billions of damage occurred?
Of course stuff happens, there are also minor earthquakes. But I think the point upstream is to avoid massive events. A tornado downtown every decade that does a few million in damage is very different than a 1% chance the city is destroyed.