As far as I know in Florida they lobbied for the government to provide flood insurance because no private company would underwrite one.

Didn't Obama just spend 15million for an on-beach estate?

(EDIT: Apparently sale is not finalized)

With sea level rise projected to be less than two meters in the next century, why not? Unless the land is extremely low lying, like some sand covered atoll in the Pacific, the property will outlast both yourself and your children.

I don't know about you, but I don't sweat what happens to my investments after myself and my children are long gone. Honestly, most of the time I have trouble just planning ten years out.

If you are rich, why not? When sea level rise, increased frequency or intensity of bad storms, etc., makes it not worth living there...they can buy another house somewhere inland. Even if they have to completely write off the waterfront property, they should be reasonably OK.

It's the people who aren't rich who have to worry the most--the people that have most of their wealth tied up in their house, and so need to be able to sell it for a good price to afford to move.

The rich also kept buying mortgage backed securities all the way until they suddenly wanted to sell them all.

Yes, the people who can buy multi-million dollar cars just to have them sit uselessly in a garage can also afford to buy properties that may be useless in a few decades. Others are buying up land in New Zealand on the belief it's relative isolation will protect them from societal collapse.

Insurers and the Pentagon seem to be treating it as a real threat, which is probably more indicative than the purchasing habits of people who tend to love rapidly depreciating status symbols.

They can afford to insure and rebuild in highly desirable, but disaster prone, areas.