all right now we have multiple parties and there was a motion to allow each attorney to present some argument however the argument of the i'm not thinking about all of you equal  time i think the village a better part should have the time to speak today and certainly i will we will allow the representatives of the state's attorney and the attorney general to present but you do have sort the ability to go into business but for parts of sorry the state just changed the statute you can't do this anymore the circuit court felt that since the contract between the parties sad that c will abide by all the laws of the state of illinois that was the end of the case is over statute says you can't do this because they had the state the state had amended the setback could open that kind of business it's a total zone and that's one of the constitutional challenges we made to the statute that the statute in addition to not having any basis to it as it must in the term in terms of studies to show that that these businesses cause that kind of secondary effect that requires such an extraordinary distance requirement it doesn't need any place for any business whether it's requires that when a governmental entity such as bedford park takes away property rights you've got to have to process in here that process is not just a formality number three if the statute doesn't fly it's unconstitutional as applied to bedford park because it's an impairment of country it takes away existing property statute itself is unconstitutional on its face it's over roll it does not differentiate between different kinds of adult businesses and the cases are legion that when you harry statute th regulates a business you've got to talk about the particular business involved whether it's a bookstore whether it's a nightclub whether it's a peep show operational or whatever this statute does not do that number two when the legislature amended the statute to make it a one mile buffer zone there was no evidence whatsoever introduced that would show that pet kind of  requirement is necessary when you're dealing with first amendment rights it is clear that there must be some evidence to show that this kind of regulation number one is necessary to  there's no list showing of any substantial governmental interest as we talked about before it's an absolute so now it leaves no place within the county for or the business of any  reach an agreement with them and the village basically says ok we waive our ordinances as long as we don't offend the state and you guys agree to it he said ok well you know that waive your restriction as long just said number one it's unconstitutional on its face number two it's unconstitutional as applied to this ended what any other business person except your crime if they wanted to now open the same type of business and that they entered into a village is it your position that we're that would say that there can't be such an establishment within one mile of certain sites is just unconstitutional there had to be a thousand feet there yes yes yes was held to be bail one thousand foot distance requirement was valid there is nothing that supports extending court didn't get to the house right and he's asked to under these circumstances where the statute itself is being attacked the court must you want to talk about the attorney general in eternity and yet by the that they have standing which is you supposed to notify only way you can get a decision is whether to whether the statute is constitutional or not it is by naming the attorney general in the states or thirty eight and that's what the constitution of illinois since they are there to attack the statute by bringing in the state of the county because they will well be her you can't actually run because if you do that you deprive this claim of due process the right to get any decision as to whether the responsible for saying anything about the validity of the statute and you do have to stay here otherwise you can have to decide and you can't you can't have normal responsible for speaking to the long as we have someone against whom to get the issue to decide and the only reason we brought in the state of the county is because the courts have well you know that for parking speak to that issue and we're not going to even talk about i still say two thousand and seven and literally nothing has happened with this property we of course the settlement agreement gave them the right but that right was subject to state law and any amendments there too and  remain with the village to operate this suddenly means that they're buying out a new and how how can that be determined at this point they're new because they've never operated they have the right under they said i'm going to remain subject to state law but there's never been a club there where they have the right on through their trick that was what they had they have particular time so i mean how did that suddenly go away and how can you say that this new doesn't be someone that's attempted to get show that i am the motion or do they get a chance to establish that right they have a chance they file for summary judgment and presumably put forth their best evidence and i know all of their issues at that point so let's talk rely upon this agreement to their detriment yes and that's where their their argument fails because they have it flat nor did they show on summary judgment substantial reasonable right there summary judgment was the time that they it comes from the complaints however it is not all fight and i believe that if you look at it i think you think how free were they say what the million dollars involved it involves the mortgage on their property their property taxes and their insurance all of which are expenses they would have incurred when they bought the property regardless of whether they ever entered into a settlement agreement with by for car to allow them to open to adult entertainment facility so those expenditures are not necessarily expenditures millwood there's a word you just used not necessarily are we talking about questions of director summary judgment purposes are not all of it could be a question of fact but it was plaintiff's obligation and their summary judgment motion to present evidence supporting those facts which they never did it's not in the record anywhere they had that opportunity on the second imagined complaint to put forth their best evidence and in fact judge paul asked us is there any question of facts here that you think i need to be concerned about and i think both parties told her no because we were we were both satisfied with the i understand now i raise it so first argument property rights simply doesn't exist solely because there was the settlement agreement you've got to look at what expenditures were made in reliance on that settlement to permit them to function so i don't know how you can say that they haven't heard it's the village that wishes to enforce this that this and i don't think there's any question that it is the village that wants to force this  talks about that and we have to presume it's constitutional and followers but don't you also have to show or at least give them an opportunity for a hearing to establish that this actually applies to them they have an argument that it carry no one's ever decided whether this statute actually climbs to them and actually the village has made that determination without hearing him at one point in the new argument he the first time that was raised and we've been l doesn't have the right to amend the law i think a rational reading of the statute is that it would apply to plaintiff's business because it's never opened there never has been a business there's a company that owns the property but that's not the same thing a car operating on those premises those are two this two distinct things so i think a rational reading of the statute could could lead to no result other than this would because they are simply complying with the state law claims cause of action than becomes a cause of action or impairment of contract which lies against the state of illinois which is the entity that created the law that is impairing the parties rights under the contract that's that's the situation we have hair that's the car explained stuck in this catch twenty two for five years and we've done what we thought we must do under state law but plaintiff is not without a read of the deer in the court to the circuit court to actually determine  that this law prohibited them from opening or did the circuit court merely say that the state created this legislation and therefore that for harkness right reach the  make that showing when it when there's a statute like this that applies to adult women facilities certainly there are there if the statutes aim is at the secondary effects the negative secondary effects that come from that type of operation and where are they are they trying their clients from and is the city of chicago part of their market area and i think in this case you have to find it and this law doesn't even apply in the city of chicago so i think the big loser has to be that certainly have reasonable opportunities to add great in the city of chicago with any of the studies that have been mentioned to any of them talk about my new demarcation in other words is there some study out there that says you need to be at least a mile away so that you don't have these secondary effects when we have all these other pieces of legislation that officially use the thousand feet and i don't hear any study that says so then why is the basis for this if i mean i thought you were relying on studies that show that you know within a thousand feet you're going to have significant secondary effects but if there's no study out there that says ok did you have to be a mile away then what if what is this based on what is the reasonable  this line of demarcation that is pushing it out to a mile it he studies have to show that there are secondary effects generated by this business which are questionably they do it's a strip club that spend documented even supreme court cases that they generate  at ok where do they propose to operate here they proposed aberrate in fact for our very close to the city of chicago border and if you spread a radius out from the out location do they have reasonable alternative opportunities to open a strip club somewhere else that allowed them to do so because they were within they were outside the one thousand but they weren't as far away smile he is and this little bit they're really different because they already had a contract with the village to be able to open up well i think there are sort of two separate analysis one goes to by the by itself is unconstitutional and the other analysis is whether they have any rights under the the agreement separate and apart from that so i don't think necessarily that they got better treatment under the constitutionality yes you just because they had a contract in place there predated the law i think the two arguments are are separate  nowhere because each of those types of businesses to studies have shown generate negative secondary effects whether you're stripped of a bookstore that is selling it's all tiriel so i think that argument is meritless the other is the special legislation claim he's arguing that because it applies only in suburban cook county and page that it is somehow special legislation to get passed the first hurdle of special legislation played at yes to show that the conditions that exist in suburban cook du page are substantially similar to the conditions that exist in any other state or any other county in the state or any other area in the state where they feel the stamp should should be enforced and they haven't even tried anything in their complaint to show substantial similarity let our brave those provisions are different under the county's code the attorney general and state's attorney are given to force the power but not under the municipal code and that makes sense here because the municipality can't enforce the law with and it  nor did they enforce or threaten to enforce the statute against c s w us and therefore the attorney general was not fighting for it the the claim that was actually brought against the train general in this case which was that the statute wasn't constitutional unless the court has other question we ask that you at least affirm the judgment as to dismiss the attorney  assert that neither the state's attorney nor the a g as ever threatened to prosecute nor intends to cross so when you are in light of these allegations there's actually no standing with respect to the we're attacking the statute you can't say just because a contract says you have to comply with was that anything that gets passed you must comply with even if it's totally of constitutional if you leave it to stoppel counter and you know arguments at least in the opening brief cannot be braced for the first time the reply it's the supreme court rule three forty one i know you're aware i know the judge our argument in the reply brief was based on the response to