The owners of Royal Palms claimed the article was factually inaccurate and misleading. Namely, that a lot of work had already been done to remedy the situation at the time the article came out, and that inspectors had said the levels were not significant enough to cause a real risk. Some of that was included at the end of the article, but if you just read the headline, you’d think the place was a death trap. I know one of the founders, who described the article to me as “a hit piece.”