motel and rooming house in the city of oakland that had previously been a non conforming used even though it was now designated as a deemed approved use while still being used as a hotel a motel or a rooming house there is nothing that affected the ability of the property owners to operate their businesses in a manner that had previously been non conforming all the ordinances did was impose a more particular specific unless there are other specific background facts provided that would allow that would force the court to look into in great detail into the legislative purpose the mindset o the legislators and i'm not aware of any authority that that requires that what i think i think it was i heard him saying something slightly different and that is if you're going to rely the city's interest and state and then we have to determine if that's a sufficient interest that needs it he's saying isn't that really raised a factual question case there needs to be you can't really do even a summary judgment on this sort of thing in a trial that's what i thought it was saying that may well be what he's saying and let me respond to that i do believe that the buckles decision at least there's a substantial discussion in that case about the fact that the california state supreme court looked at and what this what the california supreme court did and the supreme court approved this was to look at the face of the ordinance among the statements of purpose in there it says for instance whereas the city attorney has filed ten or more civil abatement actions against operators of these businesses over the past seven years in attempt to enjoin the illegal activities at the problem properties whereas individual actions for injunctive relief and or closure are not effective substitutes for proper ongoing and regular maintenance there's thought his position last and that's why i ask you the question that idea and i guess i would return to my earlier response which is that i'd i'm unaware of any authority that precludes a court on that on the basis of this level of detail factual a matter of law we don't think that this constitutes a taking under the governmental interest portion but now let me you know this is one of these things where it kind of says you are what you are but now you're not to attack the nuisances that were that were documented in these statements of purpose is the only way in which a hotel motel or a rooming house can lose to prove status which is really nothing more than a renaming of the non conforming use this is to go through the series of detail procedures which are sent out in section one seven point one five seven point one one zero through one sixth of the open planning code those appear at the excerpts of record at fifty eight through sixty those procedures allow for an extraordinary measure of process notice opportunity to be heard consecutive hearings appeals interior administrative appeals right of appeal to a court and it's only after all those have been exhausted to enable the city to place it within the administrative structure and the reason for that are are among the the justifications that i read earlier in response to justice judge robinson's question that e in terms of whether it really is particularized or generalized and if it's basically says you know hotels and motels that are previously recognized as a nonconforming years that's what attack that would require some sort of individualized notice  well i don't know the answer that there are i would note however that there are i know that mr wiser indicated there were five to ten right there are fifty points so and each of them are claiming that their rights under this case it's a comparatively recent decision of this court which is that only in the context of abortion questions and perhaps the first amendment does the morales case or some sort of bro r or some sort of different level of analysis apply to a facial challenge to an ordinance ziglar was had to do with the detention of an individual in the creation context of what's clearly a criminal statute at work and in that in that setting the court said that this woman or testament would still apply and i would just close by saying that the language that the plaintiffs jep to in this once we get to the actual the get past the what's the legal standard to the substance of the argument itself has to do with the word proximity talks and yeah and the idea that a person of ordinary intelligence would not understand what close proximity means what i believe those exact words were used and the great city of rockford case and the court in the  courts could no longer rely on frame preambles no state interest and we would have to have a trial in every case i'm trying to understand the  thank you thank you hotel and motel versus oakland is submitted thank you for waiting to the end of the calendar and really thank both council for argument is very helpful