{"id":11146,"date":"2025-09-22T07:06:13","date_gmt":"2025-09-22T13:06:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/?p=11146"},"modified":"2025-09-22T07:08:35","modified_gmt":"2025-09-22T13:08:35","slug":"public-land-25-years-ago-the-fight-over-land-use-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/?p=11146","title":{"rendered":"Public Land – 25 years ago – The fight over land use regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"

BOZEMAN, Montana \u2014 The first time I talked to Eric Dondero, I called his cell phone, and caught him on a sidewalk in the small town of Three Forks. He was asking people to sign a petition. He convinced one man to sign while I listened. Then he told me enthusiastically about his political work: \u201cI\u2019m full-time, all the time! I try to do a good 10 hours per day \u2026 I\u2019m a very ideological person. I\u2019m a proud libertarian.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dondero was operating as a point man for a campaign that stretches from Arizona to Washington state. I hoped he would allow me into the ground-level operations. \u201cAll right,\u201d he said, \u201cyou want a really good story? Come on out. I\u2019m standing in front of the Conoco store, you can\u2019t miss me. I\u2019m rockin\u2019 here!\u201d<\/p>\n

I drove west from Bozeman, through suburban sprawl and 30 miles of farm country, to the confluence of rivers where Three Forks sits. The town only amounts to a few dozen blocks, and it has a random feel, trailer homes mingled with small houses, a looming talc plant, and a fringe of new, pricier subdivisions mysteriously growing on former wheat fields.<\/p>\n

Dondero was hanging around a gas-station store on the not-too-busy main street. Stocky but not imposing, he was dressed to blend in with the Three Forks community (trimmed hair and mustache, jeans and work boots, American flag pin) as well as for a long day under the hot May sun (visor, sunglasses, long-sleeved shirt). Petitions were stacked on his clipboard, and even as I approached, he persuaded another passerby to sign. \u201cYou\u2019re a great American! I appreciate it!\u201d he told the guy.<\/p>\n

We shook hands, and Dondero grinned, animated and immediately likable. I stepped back and watched him work. Locals wheeled their pickup trucks into the parking spaces around the Conoco, and as they walked into the store, Dondero asked them politely, \u201cHow are you doing (ma\u2019am or sir)? Are you a registered voter?\u201d<\/p>\n

He seemed like an ordinary concerned citizen, not a part of an orchestrated, multistate campaign. But the libertarian movement he belongs to \u2014 broader and more powerful than the anemic Libertarian Party \u2014 has a growing reach in American politics. The movement\u2019s mission is to maximize individual freedom by limiting government power in everything from taxes to judges\u2019 rulings. One of its national leaders, Grover Norquist, has said that he wants to reduce government \u201cto the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.\u201d<\/p>\n

In this campaign, which is playing out in six Western states, the libertarians mostly want to \u201creform eminent domain\u201d \u2014 or at least that\u2019s what they say.<\/p>\n

Governments at all levels invoke eminent domain on occasion to condemn property and force the owners to accept a buyout to make room for new roads, electricity lines, urban renewal and other projects that benefit the public. Recently, however, eminent domain has been the target of public outrage, thanks to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as the Kelo case. The high court held that the city of New London, Conn., could exercise eminent domain to condemn the homes of Susette Kelo and six other holdouts, to make room for a global pharmaceutical company\u2019s 100-acre manufacturing complex. Since then, more than 30 legislatures have either passed or considered laws limiting eminent domain, and ballot initiatives have sprung up from Alaska to South Carolina.<\/p>\n

Dondero carried a knee-high posterboard that said simply: \u201cProtect Private Property Rights \u2026 Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse.\u201d Each time he made the pitch, he began, \u201cThis is a statewide petition to protect our property rights. To keep that new eminent domain law from coming to Montana and taking our homes away. \u2026 I know you saw this on Fox News, or CNN. \u2026\u201d He often referred to the Kelo case: \u201cNew London, Conn., they condemned this little old lady\u2019s property to take it away.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the patriotic sales pitch hides something else entirely. National libertarian groups are not just funneling big bucks into this campaign to protect a few property owners from eminent domain. They have their sights set on something much bigger \u2014 laying waste to land-use regulations used by state and local governments to protect the landscape, the environment and neighborhoods.<\/strong> Their goal has received little attention, partly because of its stealth mode. But the fact that the libertarians just might pull it off makes the campaign the hottest political story in the West this year.<\/p>\n

I began to see the pattern in April,<\/strong>\u00a0during a conversation with John Echeverria, head of the Environmental Law and Policy Institute at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Echeverria called it \u201ceminent domain hysteria.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Kelo case is presented as a caricature in the news,\u201d Echeverria said. \u201cMost people don\u2019t understand the valuable development (that eminent domain) can help generate, and how, if it\u2019s fairly conducted, it can produce entirely fair, even highly favorable outcomes, for affected property owners \u2014 they\u2019re paid market value or well above.\u201d We talked about some of the horror stories, where governments use eminent domain in questionable ways. But those are few and far between. What\u2019s really going on, Echeverria said, is that, \u201cThe property-rights advocates have exploited Kelo to advance a broader anti-government agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n

Libertarians and property-rights activists believe that a huge array of common government regulations on real estate, such as zoning or subdivision limits, \u201ctake\u201d away property value. Therefore, they say, the government should compensate the owner, or back off. The extreme view of \u201cregulatory takings\u201d is really at the core of this campaign \u2014 not eminent domain.<\/p>\n

The campaign to pass regulatory-takings laws began in the 1980s, when libertarians seized on the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says: \u201cNor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.\u201d They\u2019ve tried to use Congress, state legislatures and ballot initiatives to pass laws that would treat most regulations as takings. Their first big win came in November 2004, when they persuaded Oregon\u2019s voters to pass Measure 37. That initiative blew holes in the strictest land-use system in the country, allowing longtime landowners to escape many state, county and city regulations (HCN, 11\/22\/04:\u00a0In Oregon, a lesson learned the hard way<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The impacts of Measure 37 have been delayed by court battles, and the libertarians are determined to turn the delays to their advantage. Before the fallout in Oregon can be fully understood, they are rushing to pass similar ballot initiatives in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Nevada and California. While each initiative has its own sales pitch, they all deliberately tuck the notion inside the unrelated eminent domain controversy. The Los Angeles-based libertarian Reason Foundation mapped the strategy in a 64-page paper published in April, titled Statewide Regulatory Takings Reform: Exporting Oregon\u2019s Measure 37 to Other States. It recommended pushing \u201cKelo-plus\u201d initiatives, combining eminent domain reform with regulatory takings, to capitalize \u201con the tremendous public and political momentum generated in the aftermath of the Kelo ruling \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

The initiatives have titles like \u201cProtect Our Homes,\u201d \u201cThe Home Owners Protection Effort\u201d and \u201cPeople\u2019s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land\u201d \u2014 as if the government is about to come in with bulldozers to sweep everyone off their property. But here\u2019s how the initiatives would work: If you could fit 20 houses on your land, plus a junkyard, a gravel mine, and a lemonade stand, and the government limits you to six houses and lemonade, then the government would have to pay you whatever profit you would have made on the unbuilt 14 houses, junkyard and mine. Generally, if the government can\u2019t or won\u2019t pay you, then it would have to drop the regulations.<\/p>\n

Eventually, I traced the loose-knit libertarian command chain to the top. Dondero, who lives in Texas, told me he had come to Montana at the suggestion of Paul Jacob, a senior fellow at Americans for Limited Government, a Chicago-area libertarian activist group. Americans for Limited Government has provided loans and expertise to the Montana initiative, plus $827,000 to the Arizona initiative, $200,000 to Washington initiative, and $107,000 to the one in Nevada, according to the Nevada initiative\u2019s leader. Americans for Limited Government has also given $2.5 million to another libertarian group, America at its Best, based in the Washington, D.C., area, which has in turn funneled $100,000 to the Idaho initiative.<\/p>\n

One key figure is the chairman of the board of Americans for Limited Government, Howie Rich. A real estate mogul based in New York City, Rich is also on the board of the libertarian flagship Cato Institute in D.C., and heads his own Fund for Democracy. He and Jacob are famous in libertarian circles for funding initiatives in the 1990s that imposed term limits on the congressional delegations in 23 states \u2014 limits later struck down by the Supreme Court. This year, Rich says he has funneled nearly $200,000 through a group called Montanans in Action to back the Montana initiative, along with two related initiatives aimed at setting state tax limits and making it easier to recall liberal judges. The head of Montanans in Action, Trevis Butcher, says he doesn\u2019t know Rich, but he declines to say whether he is getting money from the Fund for Democracy; he won\u2019t reveal any of his backers. Records in other states show that Rich has put $1.5 million into the California regulatory-takings initiative, $230,000 into the Idaho one, and $25,000 into the Arizona version.<\/p>\n

Rich was not easy to find. He has an unlisted phone number, and his Fund for Democracy has no Web site and is not listed as a business entity in the New York secretary of state\u2019s database. When I found him and explained that I\u2019d tracked all his donations to the campaign, he said, \u201cYou\u2019ve done your homework.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the phone, Rich was confident of the rightness of his cause. \u201cI believe in the American Dream. \u2026 I believe in free markets. I believe that \u2026 government has been growing at an excessive rate, at the federal level and in many states,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019m happy to support local activists who are working to protect property rights in a whole bunch of states.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although the campaign has local allies in each state, the out-of-state money is the driving force: As this story goes to press, it ranges from about 40 percent of the local campaign budget to as high as 99 percent. The exact numbers can be hard to come by, because the libertarians have covered their tracks as much as possible. Montanans in Action has funneled another $600,000 to the California initiative, for example. Montana\u2019s loose campaign finance laws don\u2019t require the group to divulge where that money came from, but it\u2019s unlikely that it originated in a poor rural state like Montana.<\/p>\n

The money has frequently paid professional signature gatherers like Dondero, who has worked for libertarian causes for more than 15 years, from Florida to Alaska. (In the midst of the Montana petition drive, just before I met him, he\u2019d been called to Missouri for eight days to collect signatures for another libertarian initiative, one backed by a $1.3 million contribution from Rich.) Dondero was paid $15,428 for his signature gathering and expenses on the Montana initiatives, according to campaign spending reports. The California campaign reportedly paid its petitioners $1 per signature; in Nevada the rate was $1.65; in Idaho $2; and in Arizona as much as $3 per signature. The signature gatherers have a strong incentive to be persuasive.<\/p>\n

Dondero and I left the Conoco<\/strong>\u00a0and walked through Three Forks, tall shade trees giving us relief from the sun. Dondero prefers small towns. He\u2019d already worked Anaconda, Dillon, Montana City, Hamilton. \u201cPeople are much friendlier in small towns,\u201d he said. \u201cThey have time to listen to what you\u2019re saying, and they tend to be more libertarian and anti-government.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dondero grew up in Delaware with adoptive parents, the Rittbergs. (He used the name Eric Rittberg until recently.) He spent four years in the Navy, then earned a political science degree from Florida State. He claims to speak at least smidgens of 15 to 20 languages, and has self-published several language and travel books. For six months recently he held a \u201cnormal job\u201d at a Houston insurance company, just to build up money for his political travels. He flew into Montana in April, set up his base camp in a Butte apartment, and bought a low-key 1984 Nissan for $700 at a local pawnshop. Then he picked up Montana plates and a bumper sticker: \u201cProud to be an American.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dondero is a natural salesman, and he wielded his lines about eminent domain and the Kelo case to great effect. We came to a house where a woman was mowing her lawn. The machine was roaring and the woman intent on her task; I would not have approached her. But Dondero walked right up and began his rap about eminent domain. She shut off the mower, and shortly, she signed the petition. Walking on, he told me that people mowing lawns are good bets. They want to be interrupted; they\u2019re grateful.<\/p>\n

We paused in front of a mobile home, and Dondero observed that people in trailers are also good prospects: \u201cThey\u2019re very congenial, amazed that someone is coming to their door to ask them about a political matter.\u201d An elderly woman opened the door, and signed. Across the street, Dondero got a young mother wrestling with a baby in a stroller. Down the block, he got us invited into the porch room of a tidy little house, and it was a three-fer: A gray-haired farmer, just in from the fields, and his son and daughter-in-law all signed.<\/p>\n

In fact, most people Dondero approached signed his petition. It only took them a minute or two. Few asked for an explanation; many seemed to sign out of politeness.<\/p>\n

In Butte, a Democratic stronghold, and Bozeman, a college town, Dondero ran into liberals who refused to sign and even got in his face. Even in small towns, he sometimes hit fierce opposition.<\/p>\n

\u201cI hate liberals,\u201d he told me. \u201cThey just don\u2019t get it. \u2026 When you petition for the libertarian (causes), you get a thick skin. Nothing fazes you. I\u2019m one of the few people who can do this. I have the guts.\u201d<\/p>\n

In my talk with Howie Rich,<\/strong>\u00a0I told him that, despite the campaign\u2019s sales pitch, I believed these initiatives are about a lot more than eminent domain. Nationwide, eminent domain is invoked on behalf of developers only a few thousand times a year. But the proposed regulatory-takings initiatives are likely to affect millions of property owners, day in and day out, year after year. \u201cI agree with you,\u201d Rich said, \u201cthe implications \u2026 on the regulatory extent are very far-reaching, very important.\u201d In fact, he said, the originator of the regulatory takings idea, University of Chicago economist Richard Epstein, e-mailed him a while ago, saying that \u201ctrillions\u201d of regulations can be cast as takings.<\/p>\n

To get perspective, I doubled back to the father of these initiatives, Oregon\u2019s Measure 37. I learned that despite the delays caused by court fights, Oregon property owners have already filed about 2,700 Measure 37 claims, aiming to develop about 143,000 acres. Most claims are designed to loosen up the zoning of farmland and forest land. Some would break small parcels into a few additional lots. Some are from billboard companies that want to put up bigger ads in Portland. Others are for developments of hundreds of new homes, resort hotels and mines. All told, the claimants demand that governments either waive land-use regulations or pay nearly $4 billion in compensation. Not surprisingly, in almost every one of the 700 claims settled to date, governments have waived the regulations.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s likely just the start of an avalanche. Since the Oregon Supreme Court shot down a legal challenge to Measure 37 in February, there\u2019s been a surge in claims. Within a few months, another key court case will decide whether developers can buy land from longtime owners and then file claims to make regulations disappear.<\/p>\n

Oregon property-rights advocates say Measure 37 will work out fine, rolling back a heavy-handed, inflexible land-use system. \u201cWe\u2019ve had a centralized planning system for so long, it created a lot of animosity in people,\u201d said Dave Hunnicutt, president of the state\u2019s leading property-rights group, Oregonians in Action (HCN, 11\/25\/02:\u00a0Planning\u2019s poster child grows up<\/a>). In the TV ads that helped persuade 61 percent of the voters to approve Measure 37, Oregonians in Action highlighted a woman who\u2019d been fined $15,000 by the city of Portland for cutting weedlike blackberry bushes in her backyard; the city had designated it an \u201cenvironmental zone\u201d and charged that she\u2019d cut native plants intermingled with the blackberries, Hunnicutt says. Another ad featured a couple who wanted to build a house on rural acreage; they would have been allowed to occupy it only half the year, because it was designated winter habitat for elk, he says.<\/p>\n

But now that Measure 37 is taking effect, many Oregonians \u2014 including thousands of neighbors who have written official comment letters on the claims \u2014 say the new law is a disaster. \u201cIt creates indecision and unpredictability for everybody in the state \u2014 whether you\u2019re a homeowner, a business(person), a farmer, or an urban dweller, you no longer have a clue what\u2019s going to happen next door, because now there is a free pass to violate laws,\u201d said Elon Hasson, a lobbyist for the state\u2019s leading pro-planning group, 1000 Friends of Oregon.<\/p>\n

The most poignant stories come from people who voted for Measure 37, and now see negative impacts on their own neighborhoods and property values. \u201cI voted for the measure because I believe in property rights,\u201d Rose Straher, who lives in tiny Brookings on the southern Oregon coast, told me. The owner of a nearby 10-acre lily farm filed a Measure 37 claim to turn it into a 40-space mobile-home park, and got the Curry County government to waive its regulations. Straher and 46 other neighbors signed a petition opposing it. Measure 37 \u201chas absolutely no protection for the neighborhood,\u201d Straher told me. \u201cYou\u2019re giving superior rights to one particular owner. That is a big flaw.\u201d<\/p>\n

The initiatives on state ballots this year vary in their specifics, but like Measure 37, they have no language explaining where governments would get money to pay property owners for the impacts of regulations. They are intended not to make regulations workable, but to prevent them entirely.<\/p>\n

They would all be more sweeping than Measure 37 in this sense: The new initiatives would apply to all landowners facing new regulations passed by state and local governments. The one in Washington would be retroactive, covering regulations passed since 1995. They all exempt regulations that directly protect health and safety, such as limits on sewage discharges, but those regulations rarely stand in the way of development. Moreover, compared to Oregon, most of the targeted states have immature land-use regulations. All their land-use planning would essentially be frozen, with no chance of evolving in the future, even as the states are hit with population booms. Rapidly growing communities from Boise to Tucson, now inching toward meaningful land-use regulations, would be stopped in their tracks.<\/p>\n

A look around Gallatin County, home of Three Forks and Bozeman, made it clear how the Montana initiative would derail land-use planning. It\u2019s Montana\u2019s fastest-growing county, with a population shooting above 75,000. The county commissioners (one Democrat and two Republicans, including a rancher) have launched an effort to begin countywide zoning to address chaotic sprawl, increased traffic congestion, strain on all government services, worsening air pollution, and disappearing open space. If the takings initiative succeeds, it will kill that effort; the county would not be able to pass or enforce any new regulations. Also, there would be no more grassroots efforts to create small zoning districts, as the residents of Bozeman Pass just did, to hold off coalbed methane drillers \u2014 not unless the residents could get every property owner within each district to agree to every regulation.<\/p>\n

In four nearby rural counties, longtime ranching families have created regulations that make it difficult to subdivide lots smaller than 160 acres. Montanans have also passed ballot initiatives banning game farms and cyanide process gold mining. The takings initiative on this year\u2019s ballot would derail all future efforts like these.<\/p>\n

If you live in any of the six states targeted this year and someday you might want a new regulation to put conditions on a Super Wal-Mart, or to protect streambanks from new construction, or to require developers to do anything for open space and affordable housing, you would be wise to vote \u201cno\u201d in November.<\/p>\n

Dondero kept on the move<\/strong>\u00a0after Three Forks. When I called him a week or two later, he was collecting signatures in Milltown, a working-class settlement almost 200 miles to the west, on the fringe of super-liberal Missoula. A week after that, he was working small towns east of Billings, about 150 miles east of Bozeman. He told me he had personally collected at least 10,000 signatures on Montana\u2019s libertarian initiatives. After leaving Montana, he worked on libertarian initiatives in Oregon and Colorado.<\/p>\n

From now until November, unless lawsuits jam up the works, libertarians will likely continue to make headway. As in Oregon in 2004, they\u2019ll push their message in statewide TV and radio ads that feature victims of regulations \u2014 or, even more compelling, victims of eminent domain. Also as in Oregon, some local financial backing will emerge; developers and timber companies provided most of the money for the Measure 37 campaign.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a key difference. In Oregon, a huge coalition opposed Measure 37, including environmentalists, governments, planners, architects, nurses, labor, neighborhood associations, the Oregon PTA and the American Cancer Society. They won endorsements from every daily newspaper in the state. They spent twice as much money as the property-rights side. And they still lost. Now, in many of the other states, the opposition is disorganized and poorly funded.<\/p>\n

Those who understand what is at stake realize that it\u2019s an emergency. Rodger Schlickeisen, head of Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental group, hired a consultant to evaluate what happened in Oregon in \u201904. He told me that opponents ultimately lost on \u201cthe fairness issue.\u201d The Measure 37 campaign used a few compelling examples to portray government as an enemy of property owners.<\/p>\n

To beat that kind of campaign, opponents have to take a leaf out of its book: They need to find compelling examples of people who\u2019ve been helped by land-use regulations. \u201cThere\u2019s no reason that their side should have the fairness frame. There are huge fairness issues with regard to your neighbors and your community,\u201d Schlickeisen said. One person\u2019s rights can be another person\u2019s ruin, and strong regulations often raise property values, rather than lower them.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have to learn how to express that in a compelling way,\u201d Schlickeisen said. \u201cWe have a tendency to talk in policy-wonkish terms. We have to learn how to get to people, so they understand what this is all about.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s all sound bites in a statewide ballot initiative (election),\u201d warned Janet Ellis, head of Montana\u2019s Audubon Society chapter, which is beginning to organize the opposition here. \u201cThat\u2019s going to be the challenge, to wrap it up in a few words.\u201d She hopes to assemble a coalition that includes senior citizen groups and churches.<\/p>\n

It will be difficult to get voters to see all the ramifications, however. Even Eric Dondero seems oblivious to how the Big Campaign often disguises regulatory takings inside \u201ceminent domain reform.\u201d In my last talk with him, I asked him about it, and he didn\u2019t seem to understand the issue of regulatory takings.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not quite sure what you mean,\u201d Dondero said. \u201cI guess it means that if a government were to build a big ugly building next to your property, and lowered the value of your property, they\u2019d have to compensate you.\u201d When I explained that it means something else altogether, something much bigger, he said, \u201cTo me, that\u2019s a secondary part of this. To me, the main deal is Kelo. That\u2019s what this is all about. Admittedly, I\u2019m not really up on that part of the issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

It occurred to me that Dondero is just a foot soldier \u2014 courageous in his way and sincere in his beliefs, but not fully aware of how he fits into the overall mission, how his idealism is being used by those above him on the command chain. No doubt many of the people who signed his petition, thinking they were standing up for the principle of private property rights, didn\u2019t understand the ramifications either.<\/p>\n

The question for Westerners is this: How much will we choose to understand, when we go to the voting booths this November?<\/p>\n

Ray Ring is\u00a0<\/em>High Country News\u00a0Northern Rockies editor.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BOZEMAN, Montana \u2014 The first time I talked to Eric Dondero, I called his cell phone, and caught him on a sidewalk in the small town of Three Forks. He was asking people to sign a petition. He convinced one man to sign while I listened. Then he told me enthusiastically about his political work: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-public-lands"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11146","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11146"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11146\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11149,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11146\/revisions\/11149"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sbbch.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}