represent the primary issue on appeal is whether the district court use the appropriate standard to determine whether golden child make additional changes in order be however in citing the regulation the district court ignored the last sentence of the regulation which that not supplying altered elements be also be subject to requirements pay you look at all the factors that fall under that it's about does a business have the ability to pay what sort of financial situation how much would it cost and to the maximum extent feasible focus been entirely on the physical ability to make that can actually be done is that feasible to make that happen so i wonder if the real answer using all of those subject to you need to make the changes that are readily achievable to the ending because the impression one could draw from the record here is that mister smith did not go to for the purpose of patronizing the establish the establishment and really has not had no intent in ever returning and it's kind of you know the idea of just  patronize the establishment or to ever return and as i recall here mister smith is fifty miles away from his home and what that one thing that stuck out to me is his testimony that doesn't that miss brown answer that it must be stuffed alterations that isn't correct i see that is directional that the alteration requirements may apply but you must st get over the threshold of whether the alterations readily achievable the core issue before this court is whether its prior research project nearly twenty years in the past now required gold in china just spent in and limited amount of money to undergo extensive appears to be dictated he concedes that it's not relevant to whether or not that safe harbor applies to the conflict really lies or is created by the sweeping broad definition of alteration an alteration section of the provision requirements that's essentially what it says so if we are in fact in deep three then i wonder whether we're in the safe harbor because that except ads means presumably that we're not in a safe harbor anymore and what's the significance of that  can't foresee any  is the exception to the one so it's not it doesn't say notwithstanding deets re you still have to do the alteration required as it says and lest the exception indeed three is trigger you have to undertake the alteration requirements i think the way that you were thinking of the betting at least in your questions to mister brown is correct that a business that the readily achievable standard does apply as part of the alteration  makes no sense that a business that undeniably has insufficient financial assets should have to undergo repairs that would require it to go out of business the record provides that in the three years prior to the negotiation of this lawsuit golden china operated at a net loss and prior years were similar goal in china the small family owned restaurant and its two employees work more than nine hours a day six days a week and earn an ad or a mere poverty level wages at the summary judgment stage scotsman's was d required to have a plan to address alterations he demands the cost of those alterations as well as how those alterations would pack the finances and operation of gold in china he failed to meet that burden the extensive twenty nine to thirty one thousand hours are required to modify call in china's parking lot are not scott smith only has bald assertions that the measures are readily achievable because he speculates that goal in china could qualify for a mortgage or that the tax credits and deductions could help defray th gold china were able to qualify for a mortgage go in china testify that it would not be able to afford the mortgage loan payments there is nothing in the record to support the council i want to ask you about my standing question i think the district court made a call on the standing question but does that is that in the issue can we information stated in his declaration the only time he has gone back to the business it's west of here has to see if there are any other violations well you know maybe you can  the visit the visit that led to this lawsuit the visit to gold in china did that visit occur on the same day as the the visit to the bradley pizza restaurant that's described in that case you're exactly correct your honor it wasn't secondly i didn't have an i haven't gone back in the record of the readily pizza case but i'm looking at airports says that in that case mister smith testified that the only reason he drove to red morning on may th was to test the various businesses that's and that he had no specific plans to visit redwing  future that's precisely correct your honor so what do we do with what do we do with that we have a we have in a case well handed out about paying a lower court because of the refers to it is the same a cases all the same deposition that was for the bradley pizza case this case and a separate case and you're stupid which was also dismissed for by the honorable judge scholtz for lack of standing they on different grounds thank you question as we get started we have the same testimony the same deposition and bradley people as we do in the case now before the court and we have an opinion of the panel of the court that describes the testimony and makes a makes a legal an application and you intend to actually visit the location to patronize it and this is problematic because other districts have found chester standing to be an appropriate standing go there you see that there is a barrier  is problematic particularly in this case because from just the common sense sam point why would anybody make a concrete plan on a specific day to go back to a place they cannot get into now what he said you want to do is return it once it's compliant but it's not complying yes and may no changes that ramp so it doesn't make sense for him to say i'm going to go back on may th after all because he still c it so far there are multiple holiday cases so i have the wrong one but there was a few too where it didn't make sense or he could not try to go in whether it was because there was a trash can at the top of the ramp where he from the bottom didn't believe he could navigate it properly or there's another one where somebody there was no  present that made it impossible for him to go inside he's terrified of that ramp our art is in the face the holidays there he is on able to navigate the ramp either depending on the wind because it's locked and he couldn't get past the car that was there or because there's a garbage can that made it makes it impossible for him to maneuver properly to get to the door and really turned things it makes it so almost nobody would have standing because it's just too much to ask that somebody put themselves in harm's way in order to date of the deposition he didn't have a specific date in mind to go that doesn't mean that he hadn't been back before that and found out that they still had to be change it and he still didn't have information back to visiting redwing a couple times a year and there are certain certain types of public accommodation where you make you make a specific plan like a hotel