(1) Coasts are not just areas for recreation, but they are essential for commerce.
(2) Coastal areas generate enormous tax revenues, in the form of property taxes, seaborne commerce and tourism.
(3) Only a moron would argue that US coasts should be devoid of infrastructure and that such infrastructure should never be rebuilt - from a national security standpoint alone, this is foolish.
(4) Areas of the US that are far from the coast experience tornados, wildfires, earthquakes, avalanches, blizzards, storms and flooding - yet one rarely hears complaints about internal regions receiving federal aid to rebuild their infrastructure.
If it gets expensive to live on the coast then people who can afford to rebuild their properties and infrastructure will pay for it.
Someone living in a area not prone to natural hazards and such should not be subsidizing someone living in a flood zone or natural hazard area.
New Orleans is mostly at below sea-level altitude.
New Orleans is next to the sea.
Does that make sense?
I would add one more to your list. As each storm eats away at the existing coastline, the danger zone encroaches further inland, eating up commerce & infrastructure in it’s path.
I do think that beach re-nourishment should be a priority, as well as replacing damaged infrastructure, for this reason. (It is foolhardy, imho, to passive-aggressively refuse to rebuild TX 87 from Sabine Pass to High Island & will place SE Texas in a similar situation to Louisiana, eventually.)
Individuals & businesses along the coasts should be protected by private insurance, though, & not augmented by public funds- with the possible exception of transporting people & their pets out of harm’s way, if they need it.
Living on the coast has it’s risks & people knew that when they built/ bought there. (I say this as someone who has come >< this close to buying a home at Crystal Beach & has a dear friend- who agrees, btw, & who lost literally everything in Ike. They rebuilt. We opted inland.)
Never gamble more than you can afford to lose.
Maybe. There’s a big difference between rebuilding an oil refinery and summer beach homes.
(1) Coasts are not just areas for recreation, but they are essential for commerce.
Commerce, or free trade creates its own revenue--and areas of successful commerce has never had to rely on GOVERNMENT TAX MONEY to subsidize and build them up....New York, Chicago, Miami, etc. & even San Francisco (after its giant earthquake 100 years ago) were not built or rebuilt by government largess--rather BY their successful commerce.
(2) Coastal areas generate enormous tax revenues, in the form of property taxes, seaborne commerce and tourism.
GOOD! With all this locally generated revenue, there should be no need at all for the federal government to step in--and pay for things with taxes from people nowhere near those coastal areas. Infrastructure in such areas destroyed by natural disasters--if it needs to get rebuilt--should be rebuilt from LOCAL tax revenues and STATE (only if necessary) tax revenue...the bill, morally, should not be sent to Uncle Sam.
(3) Only a moron would argue that US coasts should be devoid of infrastructure and that such infrastructure should never be rebuilt - from a national security standpoint alone, this is foolish.
Who's arguing to make the coasts DEVOID of infrastructure? What about common sense though? If a bridge or levee or some other structure gets wiped out or damaged repeatedly, and it doesn't serve some compelling national interest (like a Navy base or an important road or something)---ONLY A MORON would argue that it SHOULD be rebuilt. Of course when Uncle Sam is there passing out money--lots of follies look like they need rebuilding, don't they?
(4) Areas of the US that are far from the coast experience tornados, wildfires, earthquakes, avalanches, blizzards, storms and flooding - yet one rarely hears complaints about internal regions receiving federal aid to rebuild their infrastructure.
Typically disasters in the same place inland don't occur that often...besides that, many of the victims of tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, avalanches, blizzards, storms and flooding DO NOT receive federal aid. It all depends.
I for one would like to rescind federal aid for most, if not all disasters, certainly of private property...as this is what the free market of insurance is for. If my house burns down tonight the Feds won't help me rebuild it--so why should I be forced to hand over money in federal taxes to help rebuild wealthy neighborhoods built in tinderbox-dry canyons of Southern California, just because it was a lot bigger fire that consumed hundreds of homes?
The same way on the coasts...if you're stupid enough to build a house on a sand bar, that wasn't even in the same place say 50 years ago, then if it gets washed away in a storm...well, that's just how the cookie crumbles. Morally, it is simply theft to expect other peoples money to pay for you to rebuild.
"Aid" like that--from money coerced by government from others (tax money)-- is anti-personal responsibility, anti-free-market, anti-conservative, and really fundamentally, anti-American.