<human>: Reddit I've had many wonderful experiences in beautiful coastal and inlet communities around our country, but I'm looking at the strains both in man power and tax payer backed relief funds and the numbers are audacious. Thus the question that has been swirling around in my mind since katrina, why do we continue to provide governmental assistance to those who insist on living in disaster prone environments? I understand that in places like new york this is a more recent phenomenon, but it couldn't have come completely as a shock since oceanographers and climatologists alike have been sounding this alarm for a long while.  would we be better off encouraging migration and development of communities further inland and promoting semi-permanent one's on the coast that are cheaper and less devastating to rebuild? I have thought about many different aspects of this issue throughout the years and am leaving out many. Reddit let me hear your thoughts.

Can you provide a brief rundown of the text in within 3 sentences?
<bot>: why do we continue to rebuild permanent coastal communities that are prone to devastation to the tune of hundreds of billions if not trillions over the years despite what common sense may dictate?