As much as it'd be great to just point a finger and say "You should of known better!", houses are the bulk of most folks assets and the last thing we need is to turn a few small cities worth of people into homeless refugees.

So realistically they'll get a bail out so they can at least recover somewhat. It will still be a loss for them, it'll be a loss to everyone who pays taxes, but it's still better then the alternatives.

Why? With this attitude, we'll keep building more vulnerable cities at the coast, effectively subsidizing doomed construction.

We shouldn't have unemployment, since people should just be saving enough money to make it through the hard times!

People as ends, not means. It's not ok to leave people starving in the streets as an example to others. Fight for laws to restrict building in flood plains, but don't abandon the forlorn.

They absolutely are. 99 Percent Invisible recently did an episode about the Outer Banks islands in North Carolina, which would be eroding naturally anyway even without sea level rise because they are barrier islands, which are always impermanent. Interviews with the residents there made it clear that they feel that a) there is no problem and b) if there is a problem, they are entitled to unlimited government funds for beach reconstruction to preserve the value of their property. Florida isn't going to be any different

Same in LA:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-del-mar-sea-leve...

Herb Montgomery and his wife, Janet, have lived in Del Mar's low-lying Beach Colony just east of Camino Del Mar for 20 years.

He knows the ocean is creeping closer to his property and he says the city has an obligation to protect his home, valued at $3.2 million, from the rising waters

Things are going to get ugly down the road.

Haha, this is pretty clever. They’re going to make every other taxpayer subsidize projects for the rich. I only regret I’m not brazen enough to eat my fellow man like that.