Likewise Bonaire and Curacao. I think the Balearic Islands are pretty safe from natural disaster as well.
The Pacific Northwest is only a paradise if you think six straight months of overcast, drizzle, and 40F (5 Celcius) temperatures is paradisaical.
When I moved here, I learned a new weather term that doesn’t exist in other parts of the world. In other places when it’s cloudy they’ll just say it’s cloudy. Here they distinguish between cloudy-cloudy and “cloudy with scattered sunbreaks”. Any place else that would just be an overcast day, but here it’s worth mentioning if the overcast will part enough to see the sun once for 10 minutes.
The tree octopodes can be annoying.
If that’s the case, the OP is deluding himself in thinking that he’s safe from earthquakes in New Jersey. New Jersey has experienced seven large earthquakes in the last 300 years, the latest in 1927. cite
I don’t think anywhere is “immune” from earthquakes. We had a “big one” here in around 1968 but, generally speaking, our earth doesn’t move (touch wood). Isn’t the point about California being that the San Andreas fault means that a “big one” might happen any time and that the earthquake risk there is higher than in other “fault-less” places?
It’s the same here, with lovely bush properties. They are paradise, but the risk of bushfire is always present. It is something that you need to take into account if you choose to live in forested areas.
The safety from known and possible (or probable) risks should also be taken into account when responding to the OP’s question.
I’m not sure there are any “fault-less places”. New Jersey certainly isn’t one; my cite above describes the Ramapo fault in northern New Jersey.
Here are some numbers I just cooked up, I mean, researched. Wikipedia lists 70 large earthquakes in California since 1892 (records before that date are not very complete), compared to New Jersey’s 7 in 281 years. But California is almost 19 times as large as New Jersey. If we look at earthquakes per 1000 square miles normalized to 100 years, California has 0.34 quakes/century/ksqmi and New Jersey has 0.29, a difference of less than 15%. That is, you are only about 15% more likely to experience a large quake in California than in New Jersey. Of course, the largest California quakes are larger than the largest New Jersey quakes, but New Jersey quakes (1) affect a much larger area than most California quakes because of the geology, (2) are potentially more devastating because of California’s longer history of earthquake-aware building construction codes, and (3) are potentially more deadly because the population is inexperienced with earthquakes and may not know how to react.
“Generally speaking” the earth doesn’t move here in California either, but sometimes it does, just like in New Jersey and most places on earth.