Event JSON
{
"id": "52811e0321da85f8fd82aee514890f73d53fb20ad7b8f53265aacf6618b73f6f",
"pubkey": "6516c5e1b602e138cc3f3e58606ca535c572166c29e9a72374e2282baa819714",
"created_at": 1709236640,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"120acc365aaac229de360f57d9db416dff753855c83d51015148f8a9c377f312",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"ebdee3a0b1e5fe5976293b122715581a46407f3b3d8b022e272cb67f5a5224c7",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"22bd540cb346635d71a5efd84ca284c017a65a663b02dc6450de851397473fd1",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mastodon.nz/users/ShayneParkinson/statuses/112016532488713847",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub1zg9vcdj64tpznh3kpatank6pdhlh2wz4eq74zq23fru2nsmh7vfqjunh26 Yes, they only seem to go into any detail regarding costs of removal when it's about views or development. I'd say there's a case for interpreting that as suggesting that removal for any other reason (health of residents, danger of collapse, etc) should be done at no cost to residents. Might be worth pointing that out to a councillor/other appropriate person.",
"sig": "487c3eb371528e0d7219acd222fb4500058d365cf00ed0f27c1efc9ad6b76f04c60209ca6ccaa376e77effcc8395835150de46766350b56cbfad4668928d6364"
}
