table one isn't that correct it does not appear in the section eight point six which applies to the district it is not specifically delineated in that respect to social circles charitable organizations only sixteen allow those by special use but there is no mention organizations i would imagine those should also have some sort of special treatment that they may have a different treatment under the table one not sure if we hear the eight point council for war will never intended to remove the white that that use carry korea that distinction off of its books so they were able to place it in other places pursuant to table the table we're talking about but two your argument was mutually exclusive in frome the disposition of the rationale for reversal i i i've not thought your point justice and i made the point issue when they decided that the only issue that it was going to reverse on and wasn't going to determine the merits of anything else despite the fact that i believe you are not in the point just ask for a determination which the panel refused to grant or to do which suggests that you are claiming that because the glass is half empty that it must be completely empty and it is not that it with respect to our that we are merely what we're trying to do is get our the way the case had been framed at that the legislative decision versus the administrative decision was between which of these two use categories should apply more appropriately to the actual use of the property ordinances restricting statements about distribution we were and this is a you get your arms it is not a new argument for us it's a ten year old argument we've been taking over and over and over again and so we this is supply the more strict do will apply in the truck with that but the city council knew how to be explicit in stating what applied in a particular district and what didn't we see you get by table one there is no language whatsoever specifically prohibiting a not for profit use the n a b b district and indeed the terminology clinics appears only in eight point six it does not even appear in any of the uses in table one so it seems that it may be a stretch to conclude  to raise a valid point which would be mr green might want to rest because i was trying to figure out why ordinance would be passed that would prohibit permitted use they seem to be very intent on the income that is produced by businesses that sell things that then give the city a sales tax and if there is a reason for this prohibition i don't know what it is unless it might relate to the idea that the city is not going to profit from the use but i'm not to zation doesn't charge sales tax so what is it you know i'm trying to come up with why it is there are supposed to be a reasonable exercise of the police powers in differentiating and prohibiting not for profit uses he's out of the for profit business if i can't discern the word there it is not discernible what the reason for the exercise of the police power  only go for profit churches i've never heard that is but those would be the only ones that would be permitted in the business all over the district some of the post office you could only have for profit post offices there are certain the limitation for not for profit and to make it only available for profit to do just is no there there would be for profit hospitals would be treated differently than for profit hospitals simply  site is beyond a medical use correct there are other activities that go on there that aren't necessarily just medically related  shop that was permitted in the b b district wanted to have a charitable day where people came in and had their hair cut for the cancer organization hunter council there should be a for profit for profit distinction in medical clinics but they have dozens of other claims they have claims about the way in skating about her case about setback about fraud in the application process  the plane target medical care the only question was this not for profit versus for profit and the conclusion of the court correctly was that table one does not apply and that for some reason you did apply language and part of that was the intent is to combine residential commercial etc in an orderly arrangement along the major street so as to maximize the commercial service benefit it offers as i understood it at least a thrust that you wanted us to understand i haven't heard it implicit there was a comma between commercial and service but there is not so it seems to me the thrust of it really is commercial rather than service is in a social service organization correct so we agree there is no comma between commercial therefore it makes sense that we would borrow not for profits but i want to draw the court's attention to the intent paragraph which maximizes commercial yes but service benefit it makes no reference to tax revenues regularly has to read that as against other allegedly overlapping or otherwise conflicting use chemicals the city is already having to do that on a on a daily basis and the decision of the city was