My sister from Boston came to visit, and she was asking questions about Richmond neighborhoods. It seems that after Hurricane superstorm Sandy, and seeing what’s happening in Boston with rising sea levels, she and her husband are looking to move someplace that isn’t so close to the ocean. (Boston-area developers are already working to deal with rising sea levels, but she doesn’t want to wait.)

Makes sense to me; climate change is doing two things — it’s helping raise the water levels, putting seaboard regions at greater risk of flooding, and it’s causing more-severe storms to hit. Neither is good for Boston.

I suggested that she consider North Carolina, where the legislature outlawed climate change (well, outlawed preparing for it), but she declined. And who can blame her? Virginia’s a better place to live.

All that said…

The Wall Street Journal has a list of "Best places in U.S. to buy a vacation home." With the exception of the Pocono mountains of Pennsylvania, all the locations are on the waterfront: Kissimmee, Fla., Cape Cod, the Outer Banks, Ocean City, Galveston, Texas, etc.

All are places that are at pretty high risk of stormy weather and higher tides. For Galveston, at least, the list acknowledges: "Galveston has a gulf side and a bay side, making the area prone to hurricanes." You don’t say.

The list is based on "the most popular rental destinations at VacationHomeRentals.com in the month of June," so the only criteria is "these are popular places in 2013." I would think that knowing a home would still be there in, say, 10 years would also be worth taking into account, but what do I know?