Cease building in Puna makai

[dobanion]

To address the "what about that" argument relative to natural hazard in other areas all over the mainland, I'll offer this thought.

Against hurricane, tornados, fires, floods, and for some level of tsunami, it is possible to construct homes that can reliably survive such threats with minimal damage. The will to do so may be lacking in many cases, but it's a matter of time before the pioneering types with unconventional (and probably concrete) homes survive the next disaster while their neighbors houses get leveled. Hopefully that drives adoption more. It does cause me great consternation to see people building highly flammable houses to replace entire neighborhoods that get burned down, for instance.

However, a large lava flow will destroy anything. It may not burn down but once inundated it's gone anyway. As will getting hit by a lahar, also a volcanic threat. I'd argue the people living immediately downhill from Mt Rainer in Washington state are living on borrowed time. A concrete house can (and have) endured a pyroclastic surge. The occupants better GTFO however, or end up like the residents of Pompei.

I gave this extensive consideration before I eventually purchased property in LV6.

[AaronM]

Well, the idea behind the buyback program is to mitigate future building in the rift zone. Remains to be seen how that works out.

[Carey]

Unfortunately, Carolʻs reply, as related by HOTPE, was not even correct, as Uruguay actually DOES HAVE EARTHQUAKES, the most recent was a 5.1.... ( https://earthquakes.zone/uruguay ) (always best to check out info, the report Carol was using was actually a scam piece from "internationalliving.com"!)
It would be wonderful to find a place that had no natural dangers, yet that place most likely does not exist, so the question is, what are we willing to cover?
It is interesting that the OP of this thread ONLY listed the eruption hazards for Puna, totally missing the much greater HAZARDS of Ka`u & South Kona eruptions & the fact that even Maui had an eruption in the 1790ʻs.... So my question would be should we cover some, yet not all eruption hazards?
If we do slice the hazards, which hazards are worse, those like Kilauea that have been relatively slow & low volume, or those of Mauna Loa that have been very fast (1950ʻs Hoʻokena flow traveled rift to ocean in ~3.5 hours) and high volume.... should we cover all of the folks in Ka`u & South Kona & North Kona that areas within the lava inundation areas...
How about much of Hilo, covered in the Panaewa flow about 1500 years ago... should that be covered?
Or Kona airport area... covered in the early 1800ʻs.... would the OP state that area should also be left fallow if any damage happened?

Then there is the damage from the 2006 Kiholo Bay earthquake... should our society just abandon those areas as well???

This has been an issue throughout the US, when floods keep inundating Mississippi River towns, Hurricanes revisit Gulf of Mexico areas & such... & up to this point FEMA has covered those (that IS where the rebuild money for lower Puna is coming from... ) FEMA has taken a very conservative (of human constructs) view that rebuilding is an option... esp when buy-out options are more expensive & less practical...

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

...floods, hurricanes...

Not to mention the recent collapse of an apartment complex near Miami Beach built on substrate that‘s been described as limestone Swiss cheese.  That area has subsidence, sink holes, and King Tides washing in several blocks from shore on a regular basis.

Building on solid lava in Puna almost looks like a stroke of genius in comparison.  I’ll gladly take my chances here in Zone 3.

[MyManao]

...floods, hurricanes...

I agree, our lava zones are pretty much on par with our flood zones, and should be treated equally. With equal consideration, and freedoms. With equally review and permitting process.

And, of course, we gotta great rid of the state sponsored welfare. HPIA has got to go.

Then.. maybe.. we would be closer to a sane approach to living with our active volcanoes. As it is now, the writing's on the wall, do whatever you want and you will be bailed out and compensated, no matter the depth of your folly.

[AaronM]

I lost my home to the 2018 eruption. If it wasn't for my HPIA policy, I would be living in a cardboard box.

[TomK]

...floods, hurricanes...

With equally review and permitting process.

Not only does that make no sense, you believe in magic mountains.

[Obie]

"And, of course, we gotta great rid of the state sponsored welfare. HPIA has got to go."

I wouldn't call it state sponsored welfare. HPIA raised their rates to compensate for their losses in 2018.
The average home now costs north of $4000,00 per year and HPIA is the only source for new buyers.

I lived around the corner from AaronM and had insurance thru Allstate. A combination of being a long time customer, having a high credit rating and paying cash for my home allowed that.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

And, of course, we gotta great rid of the state sponsored welfare. HPIA has got to go.


The state does require insurers to be a part of HPIA, but the program can't factually be called state sponsored welfare.  Like all other insurable risks the cost is pooled among users.  My insurance company requires that I accept and pay for a lot of coverage that I don't need if I want coverage for the parts I do want.  
From the HPIA FAQ page:

Q: Is the HPIA a state agency?

The HPIA is a nonprofit unincorporated association of all licensed insurers that write property and casualty insurance in Hawaii. Each insurer is required to be a member of the HPIA as a condition of their authority to transact business in the State. Each member insurer participates in the writings, expenses, profits, and losses of the HPIA in proportion to their market share of property and casualty insurance written in Hawaii. There is no public funding or taxpayers’ monies involved.
http://www.hpiainfo.com/coverage-information/faq/

[MyManao]

I wouldn't call it state sponsored welfare. HPIA raised their rates to compensate for their losses in  2018.
The average home now costs north of $4000,00 per year and HPIA is the only source for new buyers.

4k, 5k, it don't matter how much, it's still state sponsored and forced upon all others across the state against their will. It's welfare, and it is wrong.

Either that, or we start making conventional loans, and state sponsored insurance, available to others who wish to take similar risks. Fair is fair, right?

How about the taro farmers in Waipio Valley? They can't get conventional loads for their property. They can't get any insurance. You might say, for god's sake they're in a river bed, who in their right mind would do that? Right?

No, for my money HPIA is the root of the problem. 

Silly people will do silly things. As they should be allowed to do. But to ask the rest of us to subsidize them in their folly is wrong.