On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:30:23 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Further north means higher launch costs. Just something to consider in
weighing all the economics.

Further inland, to higher ground, not necessarily much further north. Property values are still modest in that area.

I don't see a move inland because they aren't going to routinely
launch over inhabited areas. Too much liability.

There is no need to launch over inhabited areas, there is still enough mostly vacant land on the mainland that could be bought out.

Another possibility is that runway-launched craft might be developed eventually, which would carry little more liability than existing aircraft that occasionally fall out of the sky, killing those on whom they land.

If launch costs bother you that much, Hawaii could be cheaper given its more southerly latitude.

Maybe. It depends on the transportation costs associated with moving
everything off the continental U.S.

Not everything would need to be moved. Some missions would be better launched from Florida, others from Hawaii.