I was being facetious.

The previous poster was comparing building California homes near trees to the folks who build on flood plains.

A natural expansion of that tells you that you can't build in Santa Rosa (Tubbs Fire), Oakland hills (more fires), the Bay Area (earthquakes, someday the Hayward Fault will let loose), or really much of anywhere near the coast (rising sea levels, California Coastal Commission has decided that protecting your property with water barriers is no bueno).

The unfortunate reality is that some of this may be true. Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage. If the property is untenable after 20 years then the owner is out a good chunk of money.

This isn’t a big deal when property is cheap and can be paid off within 5-10 years, and rebuilt. But housing has become dramatically more expensive relative to cash flow than it has been historically.

> Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage.

With a cheap enough house, it's just the thing. Spend all of your money on land.

Maybe the future is in RVs. If they let me get away with it, I can see scraping a parking pad in Big Sur and sticking a motorhome on it. Relatively earthquake-proof. Fire? Simply drive away. Vacations to the desert can be slept in your own bed. Want to live the classic life? Buy a GMC Motorhome.

Maybe those behemoths make sense. Live the Jim Rockford lifestyle.