Is the sentence ok?

"it is" would indicate that it is now unsafe

"it was" would indicate that it once was unsafe but is now safe

"it was" could [not 'would] indicate that it once was unsafe but is now safe. "it was" could also be a normal neutral reporting feature.

Ori, why do you think that is should be 'was'?

This,

Ori, why do you think that is should be 'was'?

should have been,

Ori, why do you think that it should be 'was'?

I think "would" is the past tense of "will". To keep consistency, using "was" instead of "is" to follow "would".

That is conditional and speculative,
as whether a guy woud go to Las Vegas if the had the cash to pay for it.

David's response tells of but one use for 'would', Ori, and as it doesn't address your issue at all, it isn't really very helpful.

It's like telling someone that a car is used to transport people to tennis lessons.

I'll address your concerns, quote above, as soon as I can.

Now here's a chance to set aside two old saws, Ori and really gain an understanding of how one of the more difficult aspects of English, the modals verbs, works.

First, keeping consistency is another name for Sequence of Tenses. There is no such thing as Sequence of Tenses in English. To always maintain consistency, as we sometimes are advised to do, would mean that there are things which can't be expressed. That's a completely untenable position for language and life.

Just this one example you asked about shows that that's a false idea.



What of "cannot"; 'can' is a purported present tense. If we follow the idea of tense consistency, should we not then have 'cannot' to 'could not', as in,

I could not believe that someone would say it was unsafe.

That 'could not' could be glossed/understood, in the proper context, as saying I once believed that but that's not the case now.

At one time, I could not believe that someone would say it was unsafe.

This too illustrates that "tense consistency" simply can't work.

We use different verb tenses/aspects to relate different nuances, shades of emotions. Language is meant for communication, not so we can follow some arcane "rules".

===========================================

Maintaining "tense consistency" becomes especially problematic when modal verbs are involved because modal verbs have no tense; they are tenseless in modern English.

There isn't a person alive that can make a sentence illustrating 'might' as the past tense of 'may', 'would' as the past tense of 'will', 'should' of 'shall', 'could' of 'can', because the modal verbs don't operate that way in modern English.