against you kind of belt and suspenders number one that you were too late because in the magic judge's view the final event was the approval of the actual building rather than the approval for the landscape but second she said to the extent that this is a regulatory taking you need under williams to apply to the state religious there was procedures for compensation and this hasn't been done and therefore the due process claims that question then as which was where i was headed with this was that it seemed to me that you were in trouble on that one because of that reason does the finality rule of williams time apply to  whatever was needed to start construction costs you more money that's correct although what happened before the landscape like well that's that that takes us to you know when that happened before the show that is true that is true we when we were going through last year playing we had our our our building was was largely completed but then it's a question of when you know certainly we know that wrongful acts that occur we know how we've been treated in this process but at the time we you know we didn't we didn't know that we're going to have all these problems with the contracting that we're going to be delayed and that you know the price would escalate it was just something we would know we thought we were on track to meet our goals as far as billing in the year two thousand and then because it was an incredible building boom in sonoma county at that time all of the delays we had that were really foster from this design review committee especially meant that all of the reasons we faced contractors that are have been committed other but we did not know that the delay you know we did not know the implications of that delay so that's why we feel we did know we've been damaged and if it didn't even occur to us at that point we've been damaged but it can't be right that is to say mere delaying is itself manage  remain subject to these designer view rules they are invoked when you do a remodeling at some point you want to build this five acres of land we could put a barn or something like that that we could actually i like there are movements afoot within the county to possibly resurrect it in some form or another the county certainly is very keen on preserving its ability to resurrect one of these things and its in its brief its sights to a nine hundred twenty six justice claims of the action so we look for is what the court pointed out was when the injury occurred and the injury occurs when the act of the body takes place and that is it could have occurred later than the last time that the design rightness issue applies when there's no regular there's no taking case before the court i mean he's going on a constitutional one thousand nine hundred three violations of equal protection and due process court let's test it this way because  i i'm not i think i just agree with you and you may be able to persuade me otherwise but let's assume and i are making this up let's assume that there are all kinds of very bad motives in the design of your committee including racial discrimination and because of  arising out of the design review committee you're going to get a lawsuit right them before the appeal takes place is that what you want because otherwise that under your argument to settle a magician is going to run on them and they can't afford to wait for the see how the appeal comes out so your office is going to be very busy well your honor if under the situation that this is not a taking case and we're taking out of context that and there is discrimination that occurs and it's racially about the house and cold even though the house was built and that should be that's a question without regard to the record right and i mean they already have the bellman that they already built the house and if you i don't they can't go back and change that some point the right that they granted to the property owner so they do have the right to build the house at that point and they went ahead and did in this case and anything that question comes down through the regulatory sc granting the building permit there are conditions that are within the granting of permit that certain things have to be done and one of them could be the landscape that has to be done but that is that a landscape agreement has to be done at that point but as far as the building permit itself and the right to build that right to build is independent of the landscaping it has to be done around the house and so they have a right to build the house upon getting that permit and they did as i keep repeating myself but and in the case here what i think is crucial is that they're not planning any discrimination nothing to do with the landscape permit itself they're not even claiming any damages accrue because the landscape permit there's things they can negotiate with you along with regard to you too that you guys want to know that one more hammer but with regard to that with regard to the issue here if there's no damage comes from the landscape they're not claiming any damage from it minutes left regarding thing injunction relief was spoken up before i think there are several reasons the board's been disbanded that's an issue here i think with the court that it is speculative about what may become in the future whether the down well it would be difficult to sell it to difficult to occupy you can't get a final occupation and then and not knowing what might happen in might do in an abatement procedure are you know i don't know that that would in my view be extreme but i would say it's not