As I said before, my guess is that some places are worth saving, others not so much. The government here does have the goal of spreading the population out a bit more, because they're worried too many people are concentrated in just a few big cities, and a big disaster could be catastrophic for this reason. It does not follow that they want everyone to spread out equally across the whole country, or that every single small town needs to be saved.
Besides, they are encouraging people to move to those second- and third-tier cities. There's various initiatives for that.
No they don't. The part that's not ocean is an industrial wasteland; if you did manage to grow anything it would likely be too full of heavy metals to safely eat. You're probably thinking of Narita, which despite billing itself as "Tokyo" is 50km the other side of the prefectural border.
I imagine it's just not worth it to go to this trouble to grow things on contaminated former-industrial land.
Everyone can find a use for more money, sure. But this was supposed to be a policy to help out the dying towns, not to give a boost to the top handful of non-Tokyo places.
> Sure, but why should a town that doesn't produce anything useful get any funding at all? Just because people lived in a place in the distant past doesn't mean people need to keep living there now.
Again, that contradicts the whole premise of this policy. If that's your thinking then why have the policy at all, why not just keep the money in Tokyo (which is after all where more people want to live)?