[–] 6314413? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Just from the top of my head that sounds ideal. I've looked at maps before thinking about where land might be best in a changing climate and I did settle on that being the most ideal, without digging too deep in it. There's plenty of water, the climate isn't too warm.
[–] 6314471? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I just found this though http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/a-major-earthquake-in-the-pacific-northwest-just-got-more-likely/495407/
If the earthquake is soon, you can probably buy property there even cheaper. Once the big earthquake hits, it probably won't hit again for thousands of years, though there may be other shocks. Yellowstone is not likely to blow soon.
[–] Joe_McCarthy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yellowstone is not likely to blow but is a major potential target for a Russian nuclear strike:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/russian-analyst-urges-nuclear-attack-on-yellowstone-national-park-and-san-andreas-fault-line-20150330-1mbl14.html
[–] 6314876? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If they did a nuclear strike they'd strike more than just that. Every major city would be hit as well. I don't know whether we should make future plans based on the nuclear holocaust scenario.