This is similar to other threads that have come along and it still contains (to me) the same mystery:
@Asabino, Do you not care about potential risks when you are evaluating possible destinations? Wild fire, floods, earthquake, hurricane, etc. Also financial risks like a city (Chicago) or state (Illinois) having to raise taxes significantly to avoid bankruptcy. ... If I were looking for a "last house" these would be important considerations for me. When I was 30 I could have handled and recovered from these types of events. Now much older, I guess I have the money to recover but I do not want the year or more of disruption and hassle.
The only possible explanation I have for my puzzlement over this issue is the human tendency toward recency bias (
Recency bias - Wikipedia) where recent events (no hurricanes, no earthquakes, etc. ) are over-weighted in decision making.
Not trying to hassle you here. Just genuinely curious why you don't mention these risks. Hurricanes alone would instantly take Florida off my candidates list.