Your reference:
"Church and White (2006) found a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ±0.3 mm per yr and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year per yr."

Btw If you look at graph beside this quote, it depicts most/all of this 195 mm rise is between say 1904 and 2004 [or about the last 100 years].
Accordingly one could to say that in last 100 years, sea level has risen about 200 mm or less [20 cm or 7.87 inches or less].

Now I said "In next 50 years sea levels *will not* and unless something unforeseeable occurs *can not* rise more than than they did for last 100 year."
Or said differently in next 50 year sea level won't rise more than 20 cm. Or on average 4 mm per year.

Your reference:
"If this acceleration remains constant, then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm"

WHICH averages less than 4 mm per year. Simple math: 110 years times 4 mm equals 440 mm.

And they are allowing for a constant acceleration to continue, so they wouldn't expect 20 cm in next 50 years, but rather something roughly like 3 mm for next 50 and roughly about 4 mm for the 50+ year after that.

So your reference does not say anything contrary to what I posted. So *in fact* it is not hard to find anyone who agrees with me. The hard thing is to find anyone [who is vaguely rational] that disagrees with idea that over the next 50 years we will not see rise in sea level which has been higher than the rise of sea level over last 100 years.

Bowser says:
"To make it easier for you, just assume they will rise. Then, who should bear the financial burden of private property going under?"

Who bore the financial burden of the rise of sea level for the last hundred years? That as shown above will be a greater rise than next 50 years.

Btw:
Questions:
How long do you expect the place you happen to living in at the moment to last? 50 years? 100 years, 500 years? 1000 years? Outlast the pyramids?
How long are you and/or our family planning on staying there? 50, 100, etc years??
Do you imagine that only the poor live near the beach?
Do you have any idea of how corrosive the beach environment is to houses over a 10 to 20 year period?
Do you have any idea of the amount total property damage done in the US by say, termites?

Finally why are you so concerned about this petty concern when millions are dying each year due to poverty. Why spend trillions of dollars that might [being extremely optimistic] stop the sea level from rising one inch over the next 50 years, when during this time 50 million people would die from malaria, which can be prevented by properly using DDT at less than 1/1000th of the cost?

So far Kyoto has cost Europe and other stupid countries: about $400 billion and they haven't made their own targets nor reduced CO2 in any significant way. But it has a winning issue in terms showing that you "concerned about the environment" without actually doing anything effective about the issue.