makes housing unavailable or otherwise unavailable for some of those houses owned by people in the neighborhood or are they owned by absentee landowners of record that can be identified both your honor so some of them are owned by the city or by the homeowners association to contact those people and compel them to clean up their property or to renovate or whatever to in order to preserve the property and it cannot speak two years of public discussion including with historical landmark groups and with representatives of i think minority communities which makes it seem like an unlikely pages long and i'm trying to discover exactly what you're defending or or attacking certainly the application of buys what you're so asked for that i don't understand what so unfair about this a three thousand dollars square foot house is not a small hats right and to the extent the three thousand dollars square foot houses appear on swiss avenue with which i'm landmark commission or some other and while it may defer there it's not you have not allege that every single application for demolition since two thousand and ten has been approved asked a question which is have you allege that every application for demolition that has before that commission under subsection ah i ha granted no we have not unless you're ok and the nd thing is that while the number of approved applications in this decade appears to be i forget or some of the if there been some approvals where there been no demolitions there has been a few because a lot more commission beer protest by the association members deny them but the city goes to the city good morning and may it please the court my name is nicholas palmer and i represent the apple e city of dallas texas in this case appellants to the street residential association who i will refer to as t s r a thirty six or a and the equal protection clause of the us constitution this court should affirm the district court's judgment because as a district court held to a rate cannot either a and organizational or an association all serious and thing and then i hope to conclude with a brief discussion on ts or aid and ability to demonstrate traceability or redress milit before i get into those main points however i do want to make a record player acacia and response to some of your questioning judge john and that is a belief paragraph seventy one of t s r  amended complaint reflects that although the city has obtained thirty two certificates of appropriateness from for demolition from the landmark commission since two thousand and ten only seventeen of those homes have actually been demolished and that is because even after the city obtaining a certificate the appropriateness for demolition demolition is always a lot the the last results if we can still reach some other result if somebody can acquire the property and rehabilitate the property within the six months the best certificate of appropriateness the ballot the city will still work with those individuals city's land cup marked commission where one of the ts or a's members had attempted to purchase a home that was subject to be demolished was and able to do so because of issues with contacting the absentee owner and the city actually committed to the landmark commission that even though it was asking for a certificate of appeal ability it would not if my certificate of appropriate demolition the city went on the record and said we will not demolish this home for four months we were we will not begin the demolition process or month to give this t s r a member additional time to try to locate the s n c owner and acquire the property of injury under an organizational theory one that they suffer a loss or injury because of the human resources that they have dedicated to opposing demolitions for the city landmark commission  organization expenditure of resources to constitute article three injury in fact the plaintiff must demonstrate that the organization the earth significant resources and that the version significantly and perceptibly impaired the organization ability to provide it soon engaged in its day to day normal activity and this makes sense because if the organization the expenditure of resources with an expenditure financial or time human resources would otherwise have been made then there is no injury to the organization because they are engaging and or based that activity appear before the landmark commission hearing subsection eight proceedings so if the fuller tell me what the city's rational reason wrong for distinguishing between houses under three thousand square feet and there were three your honor i don't believe that the rationale is reflected anywhere specifically in the record other than that through the legislation process it was originally recommended that subsection i apply universally to all structures within sort districts in the city of dallas after committee hearings before the zoning board as well as these that he planned commission different advocacy groups including the and the and the key and this is a urged and those bodies adopted their recommendation that it should apply only t structures of smaller than three thousand but i do not believe the city has to have a rational basis at this juncture in the case because he f r a does not have standing to challenge city  so you don't you can tell me well i think i think a rational reason would just be because of the parties and the different interests that are at play and these larger structures you know it certainly makes sense or  business structures commercial structures to have a different standard because businesses might be more interested in acquiring properties rehabilitating them maybe they can work them out for their commercial reasons and with respect to the distinction in square footage there is only one district according to the record that has a majority of homes over three thousand square feet i believe that that was the swi avenue historic district it's just previously although other districts have residences that are over three thousand square feet and size all other districts have a majority of homes that are lower than all of them if all of them have houses under sprit one thousand square feet only one has a majority of homes that are over three thousand dollars where every other district has homes that are a majority of homes that are under  contention that a decrease property value is not an injury in fact i believe the court actually held last year that government action that result and decrease property value is an act what the what cities argument is that on this record according to c s r raised own evidence offered in support of their response to the city's motion to dismiss specifically at the record again this wasn't the city's evidence this was t f r a's evidence in response to the city's motion they included appraisals from ten street home that showed that they had significantly increased in value in two thousand might current homeowners whose complaint is that the value for habitability of their houses has decreased because such a complaint is not about quote availability and quotes and that's what th the ten st residential historic district they have not going to be the owners of the demolished homes that would be able to bring the claim or not it would be as it wouldn't even be the owners of the demolished homes because they are they have already availed themselves they had they had the property that was available to them somebody who could perhaps bring a claim with somebody who was trying to purchase a home in the th street residential historic district and operative governing authority to an ordinance in a resolution that's correct the resolution does not change the ordinance that it's instructs the city manager how to use his powers and not to use any of his think there's still a controversy over the ordinance itself but to the extent that c s r raised requests for equitable relief or injunction they have asked specifically that the city be of what might happen has been released up well if this all goes on long enough all those foxes will be eligible for demolition under section j as an imminent public danger that's just a year was the city's position on the equal protection plain at just so lay on equal protection when i was intentional discrimination yes your honor the city's contention under the equal protection claim is that defendant or the plaintiff lacked standing here because in part what i said about the cost versus city of dallas case previously all a's members are current homeowners or resident in c f r a and there is nothing on the face of the ordinance that says it is  subsection i procedures that being said i don't think there is or there are sufficient factual allegations and aminta complaint to bring that as the plight challenge and that is because there are no allegations that the city has used any other mechanism or the landmark commission earned her to obtain a certificate of appropriateness for demolition to any home in another historic district that would be subject to the subsection i procedures as my colleague on the other on the other side mentioned a moment ago the subsection h does not require a municipal court to declare the property a public nuisance you go directly to the landmark commission to obtain a demolition under subsection eight but there's been no allegation that the city has used different procedures for any property in any of the historic districts that would difficult for anyone to acquire the property which is why the city has to take action against the party in bremen to demolish the home and abate the news i do want to spend one moment on traceability just to make  their grievance isn't one with the city their grievance is one with the absentee property owners or the current property owners and residents who fail to maintain that their property in a manner that means it's not a public nuisance this city is only demolishing homes which a court has found constitute a public nuisance and that is a home that is quote the lap of data sub standard or unfit for human habitation and a hazard to the public since treats inclusion on the register of national historic locations the thirty six dollars c f r section sixty dollars says that they will be subject to being removed from the national register not just because of the destruction of the property but because the qualities which cause it to be originally listed have been lost and they are certainly lost by the owners failure to maintain because it strikes me that what you're really trying to achieve here is protection of the minority community here equal protection claim municipal services think i mean if it were a free market anybody under the fair housing act anybody could move in and rehabilitate those houses what you want your organization and i'm just as ing this because it occurred to me and maybe i'm wrong but your own unit sation once resources so that you can all stay the way you are which is to say check again that we all know they want to be treated equally just like does focus on the fact that you have to have a court order and that this is a nuisance you're not you can't allege that the courts are acting in a racially discriminatory manner might declare in these places  this so you're really asking us to say that a nuisance is not good enough you know though approved by the court i'm a little uncomfortable about that ok well thank you very much and with that we will be dismissed