Location, Location, Location

Three factors should guide our choice of location for a Perenno facility: survival, cost, and re-industrialization.

SURVIVAL: No place is safe while civilization is collapsing. Still, we must avoid the most dangerous places and avoid getting wiped out by a subsequent disaster. We will rule out any site with a high threat level for category-five hurricanes, earthquakes, enemy attacks, floods,  landslides, pandemic “quick-and-early-spread” zones, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions or wildfires. Avoiding the primary historical target regions for F5 tornadoes makes sense as well.

COST: Construction and provisioning of a Perenno facility will consume tons of cash. Some of the best places to hunker down during a collapse would probably push the cost beyond reach. Undersea, under-mountain, mid-dessert, off-planet, and even island locations would likely break the construction budget. These choices would also defeat the goal of contributing to the renewal unless the sites were mobile, which would really hike up the price. Hardening a facility against a direct nuclear strike would also likely stretch our means too far. The first and perhaps only full-fledged Perenno facility will probably be in the United States, because of that nation’s will and capacity to shoulder the high cost.

PROSPECTS FOR RE-INDUSTRIALIZATION: Predicting which areas are best-suited to post-apocalypse redevelopment is tough.  Different disasters will lead to different conclusions. Within a given region, we can put the facility near a potential transportation hub where the spokes lead to areas with key natural resources. Unfortunately the very best places all fail to pass the safety test because they have major population centers or military bases.

These limits will still leave plenty of choices. The Think Tank will address issues of location and population before anything else. Participants may come up with different criteria, such as an area’s tradition for practicing non-industrial agriculture, which would favor selecting Amish neighbors.  Examples of the kinds of places I think they may find inviting are rural neighborhoods in the vicinities of: Colquitt, Georgia; Maysville, West Virginia; Rogers City, Michigan; and Zapata, Texas.  Once we have a dozen or so on the list, other considerations such as land cost, zoning laws, and local public opinion will come into play.

This entry was posted in Contingency Planning and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Location, Location, Location

  1. fred.greek says:

    *Admitting I have already “voted with my feet” in favor of Arizona.

    Selecting a location:
    What physical conditions do you need pre/post collapse?
    What local laws are beneficial pre-collapse?
    Shall-issue concealed carry to residents and non-residents.
    http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
    Minimal of – Planning and zoning? Building permits? Taxes.
    If a non-tax entity is contemplated, corporate law that is not overburdensome.
    Other?
    ______________
    Population density.
    http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-population-density-map.htm
    Pre-crash access to the goods and services of a modern city, but avoiding being surrounded by megalopolis.
    Pre-crash a non-burdensome sales tax rate:
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sales_tax_2009.jpg
    Pre-crash a non-burdensome property tax rate:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/11leonhardt-avgproptaxrates.html
    Pre-crash a non-burdensome income tax rate:
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/228.html
    A climate that can be readily dealt with by anyone prepared, but hostile to the un-prepared.
    Sufficient sunlight and water for growing food. Engineered “permaculture” can reduce the amount of water required, increase production, etc., but creating sunlight where there is none is an “expensive” endeavor.

Leave a Reply