Well; some solution has to be found. There are probably options other than relocation - look at Venice. But the market is signalling how much money should be diverted into finding solutions and whether it is cost-effective to do so rather than just moving.
And I have no sympathy towards the "been there for generations" argument. The circumstances of your grandma just can't be a reason for what people do in the present - it s too unfair.
Venice is an interesting example because most of the population moved off the island for obvious logistical issues. However, tourists love interesting places so the islands have not been fully abandoned. What’s telling is it’s not the kind of model that really scale as the more common it gets the less interesting it becomes.
Chicago is a more scalable model, as both raising the city and moving existing housing worked quite well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago
For another Chicago example, there's the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, a/k/a TARP (not to be confused with the 2008 Global Financial Crisis project with the same initialism).
The Chicago TARP was commissioned in the 1970s and won't be completed until 2029. It's cost > $3 billion to date.
These places are no longer safely inhabitable due to rising ocean levels. People are going to have to be relocated one way or another.