dermdoc said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

I agree with you, Doc.

The suit is about the depth of the plan and the execution of the plan. We agree on the liability.

Some are going to try to make it about where they are in a flood plain. That is noise as there is tons of data about buildings in flood plains who have actual plans.

Focus on the "plan" and the events. All of the "why are they even in a flood plain" is a losing argument IMO.

---

If I ran a camp like this, no way would I put it in a flood plain. Especially with the history. And with over 700 girls I am responsible for. We will agree to disagree.

I do agree with you that with an adequate plan that there was time to save all the campers.

---

schmellba99 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Troy91 said:

---

I agree with you, Doc.

The suit is about the depth of the plan and the execution of the plan. We agree on the liability.

Some are going to try to make it about where they are in a flood plain. That is noise as there is tons of data about buildings in flood plains who have actual plans.

Focus on the "plan" and the events. All of the "why are they even in a flood plain" is a losing argument IMO.

---

If I ran a camp like this, no way would I put it in a flood plain. Especially with the history. And with over 700 girls I am responsible for. We will agree to disagree.

I do agree with you that with an adequate plan that there was time to save all the campers.

---

The whole appeal of the camp is that it is next to the river. Just like every other structure next to every other river.

So not having it in a flood plain negates the camp all together.

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

What other way is there? We got the new legislation passed which hopefully will help keep this from happening again.

And how did Mystic respond? Not contacting all of the deceased families and then announcing they are reopening 6 weeks after the funerals with one girl's body still missing?
I understand legal stuff, but I believe Mystic could have expressed more regret and held off opening for a while. It just seems so calloused.

---

I agree with the idea legislative and administrative changes at the local, state and federal levels. Assuming for the sake of argument that this was a predictable/preventable event, then legal changes to prevent buildings being exempted or grandfathered in the floodway seems reasonable. I believe the state legislation prevents this going forward. Local requirements for an audible river warning system seems reasonable, though I question the amount of time that buys you when a wall of water is heading downstream. I would even favor criminal prosecution if it shown that laws were violated that caused those girls to perish. But the civil lawsuit won't accomplish that.

Mystic is in a bit of a d___ed if you do, d___ed if you don't position. Dick Eastland died, but efforts to mourn him are deemed insensitive. Efforts to memorialize the girls or express sympathy are deemed clumsy, offensive and outside their right to do so. Silence about the girls is also deemed callous. Any words stated to the families will surely be used as fodder in the civil suits.

I will say that I think it extremely foolish and provocative to attempt to hold the camp this year, and likely the next several years. They could definitely benefit from following professional public relations advice instead of winging it. It doesn't much matter though, because the Eastlands will be ruined, the entities bankrupt and the camp sold off when this is over. And a few lawyers will have deeper pockets for luxury purchases.

---

Bayou City said:

---

Do You think they ever re-open? I personally don't think either camp should ever reopen but that's just me.

Overall, Feels like between the future judgements and the Attorneys fees from the current and future law suits there's no way the camp and Eastlands don't file BK.

---