Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
I think there are many ways of altering the environment to reduce trauma, that don't require complete demolition and rebuilding. Which should be considered first, since there's no obvious and easy way to pay for this.
And I disagree with your justification. Response to childhood trauma shouldn't depend on how rare the tragedy is. Each response should depend on the individual situation at hand. In this case, it would be nice if we could provide a new school. But the community can't really afford it and the taxpayers shouldn't be held responsible just because the community can't afford it. A new school would be the best outcome. I'm not denying that. But we can't force that outcome just because we want to, and just expect somebody else to pay for it because that would be the nice thing to do.
|
First bolded is exactly what I said in different words.
Second is the exact reason why the minimal burden on taxpayers is warranted. Relatively speaking, it will cost us a lot less than the small community who was the victim of circumstance.