Plus food HAS to travel to get to a city.
I actually don't reject farmer subsidies out-of-hand, despite my dislike of subsidy in general. We need farmers. We don't "need" shore towns - that certainly is true. But we don't "need" to move out to suburbs, either. The highway system is more about convenience and comfort than need. Philly is a city built for 2 million with a population of around 1.2 million. The surrounding suburbs are a luxury for people who don't want city living.
Everyone is GREATLY affected by roads. Not so for beaches.
Says someone who's livelihood does not depend on the beach. I'd also argue about how we are "affected" by roads. There is good "affected" and there is bad "affected".
I would bet that 35% of the country never goes to a beach in their lifetime.
35% of the country are more than happy to accept tax money from the rich beach communities for their own infrastructure.
And the beach will always be there, just that someone else's property will become beachfront. Insurance can cover the lost property.
I'm fine with that if you agree to lift the mandate that the beach be open to all. If you make us pay for it, it should be ours. Want to visit the shore? I hope you are willing to pay for the beach. I hate unfunded mandates even more than I hate subsidies. If the Jersey Shore could charge enough to cover beach replenishment, they wouldn't need Federal money. They are allowed to charge a small fee to cover lifeguards and cleanup, and they can make some money selling business licenses, but nothing like the $4 million or so needed every couple of years for beach replenishment. The Feds also drive that cost up, since they won't let the shore towns use the silt from the bays for dune construction. I understand the desire to maintain sand quality, but we are talking about stuff that is going to be buried except during events when the beach is completely washed away.