““In the remote chance” — how about getting some facts before strutting... the factory should not be a reason for people to have to abandon their homes.”
I am not an investigative journalist to gather all the facts. We are all making our own assumptions and opining. Are you any different?
That being said, can you give me some facts to back up your assumptions that the buildings were there before?
Lets go with what you are making an assumption is the “overwhelming likelihood” — why should the factory assume that a vacant lot not owned by it is its blast liability protection?
Or even blast moral responsibility protection...
Get my drift... if there first, they should have bought the lot on which the houses were now on, if they did not want a blast wall, or else put up a blast wall. It takes two to tango this tango.