Why do you (and raganwald) portray the choice as assistance-or-total-abandonment?

Sure, provide infrequent rescues, emergency aid, and damage-mitigation. Just avoid complete 'make-whole' reimbursements, and make the costs come marginally more from those areas subject to frequent, foreseeable disasters... so that there's an incentive gradient for future moves/development to get-out-of-the-danger-zones. Not a "too bad" all-or-nothing ultimatum, but also not blank-checks for folly.

Otherwise, you're subsidizing more destruction and misery. That has been a real legacy of much unconditionally-'compassionate' weather aid, at least in USA flood and hurricane zones.