I mean, they might simply have no other options in the area. If that number is accurate (and it may not be, given the Camps financial incentives), I wouldn’t make sweeping assumptions about their parental ability.
A) I already know that there are several other camps in the area, very close by (and I’m only tangentially familiar with it). This fact is especially pertinent because the other camps didn’t build housing in the flood plain and had better, more effective emergency warning and evacuation plans. Nobody died at any of the other camps during this same flood, even though they were all along the same drainage basin.
B) Even if it was the only one in the area… If it’s a choice between ‘camp that killed 27 kids’ and ‘no camp at all’, any responsible parent who cares at all about their kids should choose the ‘no camp at all’ option. It’s not like it’s an absolutely essential service or anything. If the only option is this shitty, dangerous one … then just skip it entirely.
I mean, they might simply have no other options in the area. If that number is accurate (and it may not be, given the Camps financial incentives), I wouldn’t make sweeping assumptions about their parental ability.
Okay, but…
A) I already know that there are several other camps in the area, very close by (and I’m only tangentially familiar with it). This fact is especially pertinent because the other camps didn’t build housing in the flood plain and had better, more effective emergency warning and evacuation plans. Nobody died at any of the other camps during this same flood, even though they were all along the same drainage basin.
B) Even if it was the only one in the area… If it’s a choice between ‘camp that killed 27 kids’ and ‘no camp at all’, any responsible parent who cares at all about their kids should choose the ‘no camp at all’ option. It’s not like it’s an absolutely essential service or anything. If the only option is this shitty, dangerous one … then just skip it entirely.