Frankly you sure come off as cold hearted. You are talking about a problem affecting many people as nothing more than a mistake that we should just let die basically.
This fact is an underlying foundation for many regulatory bodies. For example the EPA establishes and enforces environmental rules in the best interest of society as a whole rather than allow companies to pollute ad nauseam which would be in their individual bottom line's best interest. This type of regulation is meant to correct factors outside of market actors which lead to an equilibrium that is sub-optimal for society.
You might say he sounds cold hearted, but that is unfairly judging an individual ethically for the speculation of an economic reality which has no ethicality.
You can talk about the economic issues all you want, but it comes down to the residents are the ones getting hurt. The people that took advantage of the situation in developing where they did are not getting hurt.
But what if parent's premise is correct?
What if these areas cannot support a local economy that justified the rapid build-out?
What if these areas will never be able to support that?
Sometimes the truth is hard. That doesn't make the truth-bearer "cold-hearted". Indeed, sticking our heads in the sand seems even worse, from a moral perspective.