I think that has yet to play out. The following assumes that these trends continue:

If government does little except top-urgency disaster relief and life saving, then insurance rates in those areas will skyrocket, adding to the (mostly) already prohibitive cost of living, and accelerating the flight to the inland and the west.

If government does much, then the costs that would be reflected in insurance rates in the above case will still exist, but they will be more spread out and, for awhile at least, less obvious. This could be desireable if the trend is going to continue. If it's going to keep up over the very long term, however, then in fact continuing to populate those areas in large numbers is extremely inefficient, and option 1 is more desireable. Of course, it's a spectrum, and government involvement could be set at a level that would merely alleviate the pain and slow the process, without halting it should permament changes so warrant.

"If the trend is going to continue" in the second paragraph should read "if the trend is going to abate."

So, it's almost 3am here in New York. The ground is still dry, and the wind doesn't seem too out of the ordinary.