{"id":179,"date":"2020-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-09-09T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/calchurches.planetpov.com\/impact\/index.php\/2020\/09\/09\/november-2020-ballot-recommendations-from-impact\/"},"modified":"2020-09-09T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2020-09-09T00:00:00","slug":"november-2020-ballot-recommendations-from-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/2020\/09\/09\/november-2020-ballot-recommendations-from-impact\/","title":{"rendered":"November 2020 Ballot Recommendations from IMPACT"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"Picture\" <\/a> <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
november_2020_ballot_recs_print.pdf<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
File Size: <\/td>\n185 kb<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
File Type: <\/td>\n pdf<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Download File<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
impactsundays.pdf<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
File Size: <\/td>\n151 kb<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
File Type: <\/td>\n pdf<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Download File<\/a><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Many of you have received\u00a0our recommendations for the statewide propositions on the November 2020 California General Election in the mail. \u00a0These have been mailed this week and we hope you will receive yours soon. Due to popular request, we are sending them out electronically too. \u00a0You can download the attached file or click on the links below if your email does not show the attachment. \u00a0Please feel free to reproduce, use, and distribute for your congregation, family, and friends. \u00a0If you want suggestions on how these are used by other congregations throughout the state, please see the attachment\/link for IMPACT Sundays.<\/span><\/p>\n

And, as always, please contact us with any questions or needs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Can You Host an IMPACT Sunday?<\/strong>Many congregations throughout California host IMPACT Sundays at their congregation, place of worship, or homes and other locations. Attached is a flyer with suggestions on how some congregations do this, but you are welcome to use your creativity! \u00a0 If you need copies of our ballot guide, you can download them here (we hope to have a short version posted in early October) or contact us. \u00a0We can send you copies but do ask for help covering the cost of printing and postage.<\/span><\/p>\n

If you do hold an IMPACT Sunday or distribute our recommendations, please be sure to let us know about it!\u00a0<\/span>
For more information, please contact us.<\/span>
\u200b<\/font><\/span>
And, as always, please contact us with any questions or needs.<\/font><\/p>\n

SUMMARY<\/span>
Proposition 14: YES
Proposition 15: YES
Proposition 16: YES
Proposition 17: YES
Proposition 18: YES
Proposition 19: YES
Proposition 20: NO
Proposition 21: YES
Proposition 22: YES
Proposition 23: YES
Proposition 24: NO
Proposition 25: NO<\/span><\/p>\n

Proposition 14\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
Authorizes Bonds to Continue Funding Stem Cell and Other Medical Research. Initiative Statute.<\/strong>
\u00a0
This is a $5.5 billion bond that will cost approximately $7.8 billion when repaid over 25 years. The bonds will continue funding the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which in turn funds research and development of stem cell medicine. CIRM began with Proposition 71 in 2004 and has ramped up both basic stem cell research and has produced 64 clinical trials covering 11 different medical specialties from cancer to macular degeneration. CIRM operating costs are confined to 7.5% of the funding with the rest to research. Work is overseen by a 35-person board.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 15<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.\u00a0<\/strong>
\u00a0
This measure will rework the property tax rates set in 1978 for both residential and commercial property by Proposition 13. Commercial and industrial property would now be taxed based on fair market value. Rather than setting tax rates based on the age of the company, Proposition 15 will tax businesses based on size and income. Those with values of less than $3 million plus all residential properties (apartments), and agricultural operations will retain Proposition 13 valuations and rates. In addition, small businesses at set income levels will be exempt from personal property tax. The new revenues, estimated to bring $6.5-11.5 billion annually, will fund K-12, community colleges, and local governments with emphasis on improving older, more deteriorated school systems in low-income areas.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 16\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
ACA 5 (Resolution, Chapter 23). Weber. Government Preferences.\u00a0<\/strong>
\u00a0
This resolution, only nine words long, repeals Proposition 209 (1996) that prohibited the state from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Rather than creating the \u201ccolor blind\u201d society promised, Proposition 209 prohibited all considerations of race and other attributes thus enabling discrimination to re-expand. Race, gender, etc., and the experiences produced in life because of them are part of the holistic experience of any person. Quotas and \u201cpoint\u201d systems remain unconstitutional. Affirmative action was meant to give equal consideration to people whose contributions to society are based in part on these ascriptive life experiences. If Prop. 15 passes, that can be restored.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 17\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
ACA 6 (Resolution, Chapter 24). McCarty. Elections: Disqualification of Electors.<\/strong>
\u00a0
This measure restores the right to vote to people on parole. Those on probation, who avoided prison, keep their right while on probation. Those on parole, the status that comes after prison release, do not. Those opposing voting rights for former convicts say it gives voting rights to those who may reoffend, and to violent criminals. However, if the parole board sees fit to release someone to return to productive society, that restorative action must include the full rights and responsibilities of the society.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 18\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
ACA 4 (Resolution, Chapter 30). Mullin. Elections: Voting Age.<\/strong>
\u00a0
This measure would allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primaries and special elections. The argument for this measure is that it would engage youth in greater likelihood of voting in general elections. Voting is essential, and we support the sentiments embodied in former President Barack Obama\u2019s eulogy for Rep. John Lewis, champion of the Voting Rights Act:\u00a0\u201c…we (must) remember what John [Lewis] said: \u2018If you don\u2019t do everything you can to change things, then they will remain the same. You only pass this way once. You have to give it all you have.\u2019 As long as young people are protesting in the streets, hoping real change takes hold, I\u2019m hopeful; but we cannot casually abandon them at the ballot box…We cannot treat voting as an errand to run if we have some time. We have to treat it as the most important action we can take on behalf of democracy.\u201d<\/strong>
\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 19\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
ACA 11 (Resolution, Chapter 31). Mullin. The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfires or Natural Disasters Act.<\/strong>
\u00a0
A similar measure was defeated in 2018 but has been rewritten. The measure helps qualified homeowners who are \u201chouse rich, income poor,\u201d while it prevents use of low-tax-rate property for income generation. By terms of Proposition 58 (1986), property with low tax rates due to age of purchase could be transferred to children and grandchildren with the same rates and valuations. In many instances wealthy individuals use that property as rental income far exceeding the tax rates paid. Proposition 19 does expand the use of existing low rates for seniors, those with disabilities, victims of wildfire or natural disaster, allowing transfer or senior rates to any county and allowing the transfer three times v. once. However, it bars inherited property from being used for income generation and requires it must be used as the primary residence by those who inherited it. All such rental properties will be reassessed upward to full market status thus generating new tax revenue. This impacts 40-60,000 taxpayers. 75% of new revenues will be assigned to the Fire Protection Fund, 25% to County Revenue Protection Fund for any possible loss of tax revenue. Every older property released for actual sale will also generate higher tax rates and more revenue for the county.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 20\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: OPPOSE<\/strong>
\u00a0
Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders, Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors.\u00a0<\/strong>
\u00a0
This proposition makes changes to policies related to criminal sentencing charges, prison release, and DNA collection. It would reclassify many misdemeanors as \u201cwobblers,\u201d permitting crimes to be either misdemeanors or felonies. These would include firearm and vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card as well as serial crime, regardless of content, and organized retail crime. The proposition would prohibit early release by reclassifying crimes as \u201cviolent.\u201d Other crimes, committed prior to 2014 reforms, would require the perpetrator to have his or her DNA on file. Furthermore, rather than having the parole board consider applicants on the basis of fulfilling their sentences and in-prison behavior, this proposition directs the parole boards to consider the person\u2019s age, employment prospects, etc. In sum, a person could remain in prison, regardless of compliance, if he or she were poorly educated and less employable; often racially biased. This proposition will undermine past sentencing reform measures passed by voters in recent elections. Crime is significantly lower in the past few years per the Public Policy Institute of California. These new standards would not stop crime but will swell our prison population through reclassification of offenses, to no discernable public benefit.
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 21\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
Expands Local Governments\u2019 Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.<\/strong>
\u00a0
Expands local governments\u2019 ability to implement rent control on some housing now covered by the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act. Under the CHA, rent control cannot be implemented for housing built or occupied after 1995. Rent control cannot be used on dwellings with distinct titles such as single-family homes, condos, townhouses, etc. In light of the soaring rents in every part of California, this year\u2019s Proposition 21 would allow local governments to abolish some CHA provisions. It upholds the bar on property first occupied in the past 16 years owned by natural persons (not those owned by corporations) with no more than two separate units, e.g., single family, condos, duplexes, subdivided units such a cooperative and community apartments. In all other eligible properties, local governments can limit rent increases to 15% during the first three years after a vacancy. While it does nothing to reduce current rental rates, it would slow the further rate increases for new tenants. Because the decision will remain in local control, it gives voice to local citizens based on perceived differences in their own communities, housing stock, and rental demand.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 22\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
Changes Employment Classification Rules for App-based Transportation and Delivery Drivers. Initiative Statute.<\/strong>
\u00a0
This proposition reworks a part of AB 5 (2019) that ended \u201cindependent contractor\u201d status for many jobs. The proposition addresses only \u201capp-based drivers\u201d \u2014 those who offer ride sharing or delivery services such as Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart, etc. While AB 5 sought greater economic equity for such \u201cgig\u201d or casual engagement work, it has created real problems for those driving. Most drivers work erratically to fit family and other considerations into their schedules and work for several different companies at the same time. Defined shifts would cause them to quit or create real hardships. Labor groups are correct to demand assured income, benefits, protections for these novel workers, new to the labor economy.\u00a0This proposition shows they have largely succeeded.\u00a0<\/strong>The companies have created this measure that puts into law the demands put forth by unions and advocates. It will provide minimum wage plus 20%, covering drive time to pick up and from delivery; mileage; insurance for both drivers\u2019 vehicles and workplace injury; guaranteed retention of tips; and payments for workers\u2019 health insurance. Unions still oppose this measure, but it\u2019s better wages than what the legislature could create for a unique group of workers, does not prohibit unionization, and offers the kinds of security as well as flexibility desired by drivers. The companies were forced to do well by their drivers. In sum, unions and advocates already won this argument for drivers that is better for these workers than most part time employees will get under AB 5 or current labor laws. It would be immoral to deny drivers this benefit simply because it came from the employers and not from unions and others. The proposition in no way impacts temporary workers who are hired for 9 to 5 positions. Those are very different working conditions and not addressed in this measure. They remain covered by the terms and standards set by AB 5. While this proposition does not go as far as we wish, it is a step in the right direction for many workers. There is nothing in this initiative to prevent the legislature from further strengthening it. We understand this is controversial, but for these reasons, we join our friends at the California NAACP in supporting this measure.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 23<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT<\/strong>
\u00a0
Authorizes State Regulation of Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Establishes Minimum Staffing and Other Requirements. Initiative Statute.\u00a0<\/strong>
\u00a0
Revisiting Prop. 8 (2018), this measure regulated private, for-profit dialysis clinics. It requires a physician on-site at dialysis clinics and monitoring blood pathogens regularly. This was defeated last time due largely to fears that for-profit dialysis centers would use the increased regulations to raise fees and to turn down poor or underinsured patients. All patients are guaranteed equal treatment in this measure. These provisions, coupled with state regulation of clinics trying to close entirely, provide safeguards for access to service along with safeguards for patient well-being. Dialysis often transmits blood-born infections; with too little monitoring, such infections can be fatal. SEIU health care workers\u2019 union sponsors this ballot measure. It has no impact on their unionization efforts. This version of the ballot measure provides patient-centered regulation and will improve an essential service many people need but are not now obtaining either in fact or in quality.
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 24<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: OPPOSE<\/strong>
\u00a0
Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute.\u00a0Expands Provisions of the CA Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and Creates California Privacy Protection Agency to Implement and Enforce the CCPA<\/strong>.
\u00a0
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was written by the Legislature, is enforced by the Attorney General, and went into full effect July 1, 2020. Proposition 24 purports to strengthen that law, but it has many unintended consequences that appear to weaken it. For those not well versed in technology, it is confusing. Many of the provisions about data collection that seem excellent, e.g., prohibitions on racial profiling, legal status as former convict, undocumented immigrant, can slip through the cracks. You may have seen popups asking if some company you\u2019re researching may use your data, but saying NO is no guarantee that your private information is not part of their baseline management information or that opting out won\u2019t cost you more money. Since the CCPA has, at this writing, operated for less than a month, these changes, opposed by ACLU, Consumer Federation of California, and Media Alliance, among others, simply cannot tackle how the existing law will function. Ballot measure terms and conditions are very hard to overturn legislatively no matter how poorly they operate. We need to see how CCPA functions now before we radically and substantially amend it, especially with provisions that may make us more, not less, vulnerable to invasions of our privacy and personal data.\u00a0
\u00a0
\u00a0
Proposition 25<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Recommendation: SUPPORT via a NO vote.<\/strong>
\u00a0
Referendum to Overturn a 2018 Law that Replaced Money Bail System with a System Based on Public Safety Risk.\u00a0<\/strong>
\u00a0
This referendum challenges a state statute to replace cash bail with risk assessments for suspects awaiting trial. SB 10 gave the courts discretion to assess low, medium, and high-risk defendants who could be released or detained on those assessments rather than on a demand for cash bail. Most proffering bail had to come up with 10% for a bail bond from a private provider, and if that was impossible, the defendant languished in jail. Wealthy people got out. Poor people remained. However, SB 10 did not actually improve chances of greater justice. \u201cRisk assessment\u201d may be racially, culturally, and economically biased. There are no guidelines in SB 10 for what sets determinations. All three CA affiliates of American Civil Liberties Union opposed SB 10 with its unintended racial biases and potential for greater not lesser inequity. ACLU is not opposing this ballot measure since it is sponsored by the for-profit bail industry. IMPACT, however, believes the greater good requires revisiting the entire issue to assure real justice.\u00a0Because it is a referendum, a YES vote is to UPHOLD SB 10. A NO vote is to return to cash bail while we revisit the issue on risk assessments and other criteria.<\/em><\/strong>
\u00a0
\u00a0
SUMMARY<\/strong>
Proposition 14: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 15: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 16: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 17: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 18: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 19: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 20: NO<\/strong>
Proposition 21: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 22: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 23: YES<\/strong>
Proposition 24: NO<\/strong>
Proposition 25: NO<\/strong>
\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

november_2020_ballot_recs_print.pdf File Size: 185 kb File Type: pdf Download File impactsundays.pdf File Size: 151 kb File Type: pdf Download File Many of you have received\u00a0our … Read More ›<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/churchimpact.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}