[Tangurena2]

Eventually, we're going to have to abandon much of the vastly overpriced property along the seashore. Parts of Hollywood and Miami are already below sea level. We aren't willing to build the sort of dykes that one sees in Netherlands (homeowners will sue because it blocks their view of the sea), and we're too car-centric to let cities turn into Venice.

So we're going to buy those folks out anyway. This year, next year, 20 years from now. Eventually. It would be better to start now. New Orleans should have been abandoned already.

[pc86]

Why should we buy them out? Nobody forced them to buy beachfront property in the first place. If the property ends up being abandoned, it's abandoned, and the owner should lose their investment.

You're acting like a buyout is inevitable when it's not. The last thing we should do as a society is a multi-hundred-billion / trillion dollar buyout of beachfront hotels and luxury property.

[ryandrake]

> You're acting like a buyout is inevitable when it's not.

The wealthy beachfront property owners will point the media's cameras at the also-destroyed properties of the poor and elderly in the area, saying "How can the USA let these poor people lose everything!" We, the stupid taxpayers, will fall for it and bail everyone out.

[kyleee]

I agree in an ideal world; but in the real world there is a 0% chance Obama is taking a loss on his Martha’s Vineyard property.

What the perso you are responding to is saying is that we should start in incentivizing people out of such properties now versus it happening over a longer period at a higher cost. Either way some people are going to probably have to move so we may as well get ahead of it

[sokoloff]

"Some people overpaid for seaside property." "Oh wow, I'm sorry they made such a terrible decision."

"Now you need to reach into your pocket and pay them back." "Nah; fuck off. They can live with their decision."