with the basic facts of the law but i would like to touch briefly on a few of points on each major issue before you i do want to reserve time for about all i think in this case it is important to step back for a moment and look at the nature of living wage ordinance which are often thought about like minimum wage laws that are really very different in all of the hundred or so cities that have adopted living wage ordinances they are a contractual requirement that those doing just this with a particular city pay a wage typically more than twice the federal minimum wage often pay other benefits as part of the cost of doing business with the city that is reflected in the price that the city agrees to pay for the goods or services or the rent they receive from  licenses it is also i think important keep in mind the context in which the city of berkeley adopted the amendment to the living wage ordinance which is before the court today in june of two thousand after more than eight months of study the that's the difference here because what the city did was unilaterally change the contract the company does the the original living wage ordinance is it clear that it only applied prospectively to contract the city would enter into  covered in the original ordinance however because they already had an existing contract they were it would only be applied to them in the future correct when amendments came up when your lease expires now and when you get somewhere along the line and  rationale here is that are you i occupied this plant valuable land public trust land undisputed by lease with the city the the  honor you talk of equal protection let me shift the two of course are closely related in this matter because you keep coming back to the issue that the rationale for anything is that they occupied this valuable land i think on the equal protection grounds in that case i would assume based on the other similar cases that there is some particular rationale in the different benefits or otherwise january one onward everybody who employs people within the city of berkeley has to pay this much you have no constitutional argument at all it sounds like i think that's correct your honor i think that it would be politically almost impossible for them t berkeley but on the constitutional grounds had they done the minimum wage law by police power throughout the city of find all businesses equally we would not have these issues there mind if they concluded the question you need to look at the rationale for the ordinance as well for the amendment as well as the contract the rationale is because you occupy this lan therefore we can impose it on the right to occupy the land is the fundamental element of the lease you pay rent in order to occupy this land and the city of berkeley made very clear terms of rages and benefit on a certain amount of profit i don't think profits are here and we have not argued that i do think it is a burden the additional costs there's nothing in the lisa says that the minimum wage state we have leased to you for that reason alone we are imposing this additional cost on you and i would point out it's an additional cost that in the greenwich report and in all the reports the city being reduced by virtue of having to increase their wages yes there's no question when you enter into a rental negotiation to decide what's a fair rent and whether in fact you want to rent this property the business in the reason berkeley offered was not because there's something about these businesses or even about this area that affects wages that are more low paid employees are here rationalists only because to do with a particular nature of the public trust land all of the elements that the berkeley side cites in its findings for the amendment the special nature of this are precisely the elements that they cited in sa contract clause issue here under the higher scrutiny standard because the city is benefiting from this law the city is avoiding a cost that it is expected to pay sharing in the cost of requiring the additional wages report makes clear that berkeley like every other city that adopted a living wage ordinance expects to share in the cost of doubling or tripling the minimum wage by receiving in th that cost we are avoiding a negotiation over the rent that would have occurred when they were covered naturally under the living wage ordinance to sell to the connection is in there in the benefit of the land and now they're saying that the charge for the rent to benefit from the land you need now to do these additional things should stand in the ne'eman they also added a grease trap other circumstances that are related to the increase in wages there's no connection there's no nexus between the ins created in wages and this particular location the time has expired we will her store manager  the history of wage and hour regulation over the last one hundred years and point out that the term living wage is not designed to describe in any fashion the manner in which these obligations are might say for example that poor people have always been poor and yet for two hundred years two hundred years ago we didn't have minimum wage regulations nothing is new about poverty nothing is new about people suffering the whole nature between the level of benefit that say someone doing short term contract for the city yet when they walk in the door and say do prepare an environmental impact report and it's and wage ordinance the city had existing contracts with many different kinds of vendors did a living wage ordinance apply immediately to existing contracts between contractors and the city  somebody running a cafeteria yes that had a either a license for a contract with the city to operate a cafeteria in the basement as of the time the living wage ordinance was adopted your contract is things contract with actually by the city of berkeley and oakland raiders versus the city of berkeley we might have been the only city to have a fight with the raiders and win but anyway where attack was imposed and it only applied it was a certain admission district the massive multimillion dollar outlays of public funds much after any agreement amendment was negotiated with these individuals the very protective regulatory climate and decisions not to allow any other private businesses to function there and the fact that the public there was had very limited opportunities and what business is it could it could  geographic area and in fact was truly a grandfather case not a geographic case the distinction was people who'd been there for more than ten years i believe the council i this may not be at this may not be in the record but i am i am curious as to  the fourteen potential businesses in the marina that and so i think there were five or five leases five contrast i believe that there are five the only who else might be operating in the marina the any other licensees in the area for transit to other very quick points if you lease an office building from the city and the city then subsequently builds a park and then i am creating his own of these two blocks park and office building and all property owners i'm sure all operators business operating have to pay to support that part they have now