exact issue here i don't believe there's any question that everyone agrees that the intention of the state is to encourage real estate well but the question here is  essentially whether or not a developers exemption is limited to one developer or whether if he turns his operation over to a second developer either the sale or through foreclosure whether that developers exemption continues a third time they were transferred bulk lots this time from g e development to now call directly to alcoa again the transfer was not treated as an initial sailed wots in the developer clearly there's a history here of the supervisor assessments doing exactly what i believe the legislature intended which was to protect developers who haven't sold these lots out individually to people because they still have this capitalized expense that hasn't been passed on their carry now when one developer and nationally may lay out part of the sidewalk or part of the streets and i understand the steam council's argument that that they're the only ones then you should be a developer the truth matter is that those expenses are passed on in the bank transfer to whoever buys them and they have the continued obligation to continue to maintain their roads and continue to maintain the if we look at the language that they've talked about it seems to clearly want to encourage real estate development in illinois and they do that by not having the taxes go up until the watts are individually sold that people are going to build houses bulk transfers they reassess all lots from farmland into individual pots with the attendant increase in the taxes that he would have to pay him again in my opinion this clearly defeats the legislative intent to encourage them if a successor developer is is going to have all the taxes increase on all possible for he sells them there is no encourage man in a case like that for anyone to ever become the successor developer if a bank or mortgage company could wind their money to a developer to make is development only at the risk of if they take it back to foreclosure of having to him he has exactly the same burden that all these original developers and the only distinction is that instead of a warranty from g e to him it was the sheriff's the from telco to the mortgage company when does the kerry say and when is the last say how many trains first can there be in at what point should these be reassessed at what they were understand that i disagree with that for the simple reason that for you know any one of these transfers may have been caused by the fact they were having trouble transferred from one to another this particular case mr nelson or  allows property pull back to there but if we if we apply and let the county is when you do essentially we're taking this new developer who is taking on a risk you know there's nothing that requires him to come in and take over something to try to have houses g person that comes in taxes go up on the except you told me that the improvements the expenses for those improvements get passed along yes or why does that the risk of or the he's basing his analysis on is the past history itself i understand and believe if this case were to stand that what we're going to do by or do what i believe i'm going to pay less for because i'm going to have to pay higher taxes i believe that may be the case too or or other that the bank who lands the money on it is going to have to absorb absorbed shock or sell it for less i mean they're not going to get back their gas and i mean that boss is always going to fall on some right that's the free market side the legislative intent is to encourage development and i believe that you i don't believe that there's any way that we can make an argument that says raising the taxes crisis assessing risk that actually getting involved in deciding what the whites are going to be so poor to bear the experience of the taxes that have been paid and that is would they have put it in there if it was a recovery i guess that's my question but i don't believe that it was covered i think that first off the way you have to look at those is the fact that under the old statute we had exclusionary language and under the new one we had include like  argument was that that was that was more of a stretch for my client to ar was the supervisor of assessments correct in treating this understood i don't know what you just really think about the history but would it be was the supervisor correct in treating this when differently  in chose this mortgage foreclosure sale however the records of not entirely clear how that sale actually took place whether it was a single bit for everything or whether it's individual bits for each partial represent clear foreclosure sales played by sheriff's so i think that's a distinction to be made that's the distinction that was made of trial level by the by by the trial judge that anybody could have shown up at this sheriff's sale bid on it  broken up in a way or or purchased individually that obviously is slightly triggering event i believe that's what the rationale was the supervisor assessments say obviously the record is clear on that but i think that was the logic that was assessment for that to a presidential level but the remaining lights that were after cultural before continue to be taxed at that same right yes if it's the developer selling of individual sale via mortgage foreclosure is completely different thing from the statute to prevent you the all transfer off all the property from one developer to another developer could have been treated as an initial transfer but i think you mention the idea about putting tax rolls in persian the development i think that's why they work i would speculate that's why they were they wanted to see  properties for the developer they didn't want to burden those developers with the initial tax burdens of having a pair of these these projects that apparently full of difficult financial times were wrong do we want to leave it to precedent that makes it clear that this statutory scheme provides a complete remedy for each taxpayer and the procedure is very broad application and it pre amps suits for declar but yet they stipulate to a record they didn't have a record from the border they didn't have a record from the supervisor assessments and that's the only problem that's the procedure set up by the property packo's says that if you go to the   it's either a it's either a dog and pony show where they just throw in some token evidence not expecting the four of you to do anything or if there's if the surprise assessments has some sort of relationship or the people something i'm sorry i must have been clear on administrative review at the supreme court there is no  fall and that that implicates the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies it also has a related issue with the voluntary payment doctrine that it's established that a taxpayer may not recover paid even if the taxes imposed or assessed are illegal unless the statute specifically provides for the property tax code provides for that remedy you can recover despite voluntary that allegation made there i believe it was i believe they make that allegation ok so you think that these the issue before everyone was this this single question of law our position was that the one the one method the council really touching on was that there are simply assessment is something different and i believe that madison specifically states that where valuation is an issue as the case here those options are mutually exclusive and this was an issue question of valuation this is a question of how we live long