You're missing the point here.    The article  is about the consequences of building a 1200 ton house on a cliff overlooking the ocean in New England.  It would be one thing if the homeowners owned the entire island; & then they could keep shuffling their house around until they found a firm(er) footing for it.  This is about whether or not this house should have gone up in the first place. 

Chappaquiddick is only 6 miles wide.  The homeowners put their house up in the expectation that it would not wash away into the sea; a reasonable supposition on their part.  They have been proved wrong.  Super storm Sandy & howling winter gales have run their footing from solid to liquid.  That house started out being 220 feet away from the ocean- now it is only 40 feet away.   If the island were 100 miles wide they might be able to make a better argument for the move- but it isn't - it is only 6 miles wide & other people do live there.  The townies have made reasonable arguments as to the fragility of the bluff & some good arguments as to why preservation of that bluff should trump the homeowners' rights to rebuild on private property using their own money to do so.  The issue is also about sustainability.  There are no guarantees that even if these people move their 1200 ton house back another 275 feet that the bluff erosion will stop.  One of the comments about the actual weight of the house being a primary mover of erosion was interesting.   This is also an argument that is getting wrangled around with more & more in Massachusetts.

I live in a  seaside town, although the only water views I have from my kitchen are the puddles in my driveway.  We haven't lost any houses in my town --- so far.  I live about 30 minutes away from  Plum Island, where at least one house literally collapsed into the ocean during a storm from about 2 weeks ago & I think maybe 7 other houses built right onto the ocean were condemned by the town as uninhabitable.  These houses weren't mansions & they weren't  beach shacks either - just average size homes.  The question then, is if I have to stump up money in the form of tax dollars, to help pay for federal flood insurance should these homeowners who choose to build on the beach continue to be allowed to do so. 

I don't know anything about the Midwest, other than the fact that it does not have an ocean.  Do people who build on riverbanks, that are prone to flooding have the right to take your tax dollars & rebuild in a spot that is likely to wash away next year, or the year after? 

And as for rich bashing, that is a fairly common sport- one that has been around for millennia.