The problem with the Omelas discourse is that it's still stuck in the 1970s.

In 1992, a team discovered a way to power the city's infinite-luck generator with harmless ethanol. There was a brief discussion of whether to make the switch, with citizens protesting that it was woke government overreach by do-gooders who wanted to destroy everything that made the city unique. What if the truck carrying the ethanol shipments crashed and started a fire? What if it was all just a shadowy plot by ethanol manufacturers? Had the high modernist eggheads ever considered the Law of Unintended Consequences before smugly demanding that ordinary citizens demolish a Chesterton's Fence which had stood for generations? Or were they so blinded by their luxury beliefs that they worried more about a child of unknown extraction than about their fellow citizens who the government existed in order to protect? No, the ethanol thing was the sort of naive techno-solutionism that never worked, and Omelas would have none of it. The few people who disagreed walked away like all the other traitors.

This barely affected the philosophers - they still preferred the whole affair to be a parable for consequentialism vs. deontology, and they continued to discuss it on that basis. If you read their footnotes carefully, some of them will mention "Of course, there's always the ethanol option..." but it never really connects with the points that they find interesting, and it's increasingly common practice for articles in ethics journals to skip mentioning it entirely.