[eloisant]

Because it's the job of the country/state to decide what land are safe to be built on.

If building too close to the shore was a bad idea, and it was known at the time, the zoning should have forbid it to start with.

These people are not personally responsible for the raise of the sea level, it makes sense to have the risk taken away from them.

[lettergram]

> Because it's the job of the country/state to decide what land are safe to be built on.

Not everyone agrees with you. Personally, I don’t think it’s up to the government to tell you where you can / can’t live on land you purchase. However, inspections should and do occur informing you of risks.

Zoning has to do with a variety of factors, but I doubt for most of U.S. history it had to do with “will this coast erode in 100 years” From my limited understanding it has more to do with what CAN be built, not what SHOULD. Basically, “this can be commercial real estate because we need revenue/jobs” vs “this can be residential because we need people”

[hrktb]

> Personally, I don’t think it’s up to the government to tell you where you can / can’t live on land you purchase.

I respect your opinion, but isn’t it the very purpose of zoning to define what can and cannot be done on that purchased land ?

And it’s already used for protection of habitations, for instance not allowing houses in industrial areas. For high risk areas, this all issue could have been avoided by refusing building permits as well, but blanket deciding a whole area can’t be used for living is the easiest course of action IMO.