transferred chevron have the means to recapture any premium that perhaps he left he would gain through the sale of his or her interest in that and that's not an issue here as to whether or not a premium if any might be transferred that is to say it's entirely possible that the first tenet on the pad might well pass on the savings and not capture or at least that a factual question you know your honor not in a facial challenge question is whether the whether but that doesn't make any sense to me that we can strike down or the district court to strike down as unconstitutional a statute based upon what's going to happen to a premium and based upon the task that there will be no substantial investment of the purpose of the statute without taking any evidence because because i think your stand was a possibility that it could go to work so badly that it's non constitutional and the mere possibility is a mathematical un constitutional you don't we didn't go to trial and we put on the economic burden all of the economic experts both the u s and the landlords agreed that economic principle the capitalization theory would result court's decision in chevron mentions that richardson made a finding of a premium however there is no evidence in either the district court decision or this court's decision that finding was anything other than the three requirements for a premium to divided ownership controlled rents and the ability to transfer the benefits of controlled rats with evidence of these three factors the court apply the principles of economic the bottom line in the graph is that mobile home prices and qatar iran are her by comparison to county mobile homes that are not under pressure control and then ordinary homes not particular rental increases that were allowed and that sort of thing the new ordinance is twenty four pages dedicated only to mobile home park rent control in them it's been out of rents that can be the court said that the premium is related to start over the effect of the premium bears on the question of whether the ordinance causes regulatory taking  the purposes of the ordina necessarily would create the premium which would prevent it from fulfilling apparently its only legitimate government purpose of preserving affordable housing in that particular instance and the difference in this case is like the difference in and the question whether that necessarily will occur under this particular ordinance i think it is a fact of pending question unlike what parallel is considered in reference to the reason why the owner the owner of the trailer space is is bound by the ordinance can get a premium but the owner of the space going on and that's on the face of the organs know that the face of the ordinance has nothing to do with whether or not a premium would create i mean ask you how can the owner of the trailer park collect the if you don't have vacancy control or not because one of the reasons for vacancy control from the city's point of view and the question is whose property rights are you getting or hear from the city's point of view on their findings and its legislative was that determined that the park owner because of the shortage of spaces because of the in movability of the homes because of the demographics of the people that live in these parks the park owner has the ability to raise rents upon the say almost all to levels that are above minute and explain precisely how the vacancy control works and what we have that on the table that i think i'm going to better position to understand your argument just how the order to set up vacanc following question and that is the task stablished under chevron and i mean this is the way the game works i lost in chevron and this is the test likable the test is whether or test or is that merely a mechanism by which we try and figure out whether the test is satisfied what is that what is the state interest here and in your view how is it being substantially advanced the ordinance thomas fisher owner ha basically the stated purposes without going back and reading them talk about the disparity in bargaining power between the residents of the parks and the owners protecting the existing residents against excessive rain increases and more important for purposes of this premium legitimate government purpose and all i'm saying as long as this ordinance advances in any of the seven state of purposes it doesn't matter if it creates a premium that's a legislative choice the legislature may well the side that you have a competing issue here are we going to protect the equity in the homes protecting the equity in the homes realise that there is a relationship between the rents charged and the price of the homes it's like the capitalization theory is the same theory it only works when pieces are substantially above what be a free market rent and then the equity starts to get lost out of the home up but if the legislature sent our real problem here is to protect the equity in the homes we're not so much worried that this might create a premium make the house less you know it's not enormous designed to protect the investment of the park owners quite frankly it's designed to protect the investment of the mobile home owners goes down and value the trailer goes up reza score pointed out chevron all price regulation all land regulation  value of property in this case the question is whether or not in doing so number one is the park owner here to guarantee a fair and reasonable return and number two if the city in passing this ordinance substantially furthering legitimate government interes just step out and let me see if i can understand your argument about protecting the equity in the homeowner not had owner but the homeowner the argument i guess is as follows the path is being landed at i'm just making these numbers up ten dollars a month i mean the parrot owner says terrific is not going to cost you a hundred dollars a month instead of ten dollars a month the cost of moving that trailer is sacha that at that point the value of the trailer has substantially diminished and you're saying that well you want to keep the parrot owner from doing that once you sort of captured there's a different form of capture i'm not capturing premium i'm capturing trailer once i captured the trailer and made it very difficult for i'm not going to mclean to move it around thing now i'm going to can raise the rent so high that you know the the the person will walk away from the home and lose the home the park owner will sell it for background at an auction in capture the home and then sell the home and sell and that's the directly what can happen if you have a park owner that just well outweigh the extra price he pays up front so on the context of mobile home rent control the premium theory advanced enrichment and really doesn't have much application number one because mobile home  control and that's why this premium theory number one is relevant but number two as a matter of fact it was found that there wasn't a premium created after twenty years of rent control with they can see control in this town and so what we're being asked to do by the park owners in this case is saying look we should close your eyes from blind their eyes to the actual facts and we should rely solely on economic theory and predictive fact now granted this court didn't require the district court didn't require and pure love it didn't require it it was presented it and unfortunately the partner in this case yes if this had been the first mobile home control ordinance ever passed with a can see control sonoma county and you can ignore that evidence if you're going to predict what no one wants is going to do what better place to look than where it's been operating or where it control what they can see controlled and operating for twenty years the facts are there from which you can predict the future and i turned a blind eye to those facts and that's why judge armstrong found their evidence less persuasive but the fact is number one as a matter of fact no premium and it was not contradicted because dr hurst didn't try to prove that one was being created he didn't try to quantify what it would be to see if it would make the homes more or less affordable he didn't do any of that all he did was i would expect i mean the strongest evidence they have less he could not rule out the possibility of this particular storm of  believe that the case of say that a premium based challenge is a facial challenge i believe you get into that when you're bringing in as the plight challenge which is a fair return kind of argument that in a facial