I haven't read the OP article, yet, but as I vaguely recall from past media reporting on the topic, I believe one of the reasons such sites were chosen is that the were economically fairly poor. The jobs were welcome and outweighed residents' safety concerns. (Perhaps safety concerns were also somewhat diminished by said residents having on average a lower degree of independent information and/or education.)
This is from memory; feel free to correct me if and as I'm wrong.
Such approaches can also be spun positively as "economic development packages/projects". Whenever such is said, the observer should look critically at who is really benefiting -- as often as not, I think, the project owners' interests come ahead of, and sometimes at the cost of, those of local residents.
Ideally, all parties gain. But to do so, amongst other things someone has to keep those in power from cutting too many corners.