extension in the end of the city to gets envelopment of the property all of the applications that they need for an explanation i met all of the requirements for the city for a conference the planning and zoning ordinance requirement either denied or delayed and part of the critical saying here is is in one thousand nine hundred six there was a proposal to have a charter and then to allow the citizens to peel off that yes or no vote by the city council my client the second annexation which could have been done before the charter and then in final they continued indefinitely never been the site has been decided up self today as we speak right now so  now i'd like to talk about two broad overviews that really weren't covered very well probably in the in the briefing because it is so wrapped up in the details but one overview of it is the vote itself oregon constitution has is yes the legislature long long time ago granted authority to cities to do and if stations kind of authority to do public facilities and services inside and outside it was bonded but that didn't work out and whole picture of the regulatory whether you're looking at the intent of the state or whether you're setting minimum standards under due process for the oregon constitution these are the the crux of how all of the staff you to be ready  that's all we've got they don't make the land use decision supporting the bill in a way it's like that land use decisions got x out and the only thing before us is a no vote with no standards which violates the federal  its quote approval or denial so it applies here that requires a set of fines for their decision that supports that their decision at the findings have to address all of the approval criteria which come under the state statutes and  planned to see a doctor and it has to have supporting facts and it has to have a reason justification for a specific so that's the minimum standards set by the state of oregon period the other one is just critical to this case as far as i'm concerned is or is one thousand seven point five to two it comes in two parts the first part is quote a local government shall approve an application for a permit or other approval as they could have presented other conditions to the voters to vote on that would have brought all of this in compliance and they didn't do that and when the voters said no and it came back to the city council and they commemorated that decision with in any trust context reaches that point of state action immunity so that's a question of first impression that's one and and two that means in my view it's it's not mature for the   if there's no state action or a new unity here then then how is how is the situation out of these violations of state law going to be addressed by a federal court on any trust when there are so many cases  the voters right then when they said no then they could have moved that to this the council hearing held their land use decision and got all their fine words and i that they didn't do that they didn't do that they didn't follow that policy the other side of it is cited dan gile and then giles says at page ten twenty six the governing body must and the electorate cannot follow the procedures or be confined to the substance of those requirements in tongue to hold that the land use decision may be referred to the electorate would be the equivalent of holding that it need not be made in compliance with the procedural insults in the requirements of state statute so clearly the level under the oregon constitution article one section and for due process requirements that there hasn't been for the origins in court for also we have the oldest decision u s bancorp decision and the problem with that is the u s supreme court has said that the federal court has to look at the gravel and then in the action too before looking down into the state courts of the proper statutes in here the oregon paying court has long since already oregon seeing court said that is a girl wreck compensatory claim under the constitution the oregon constitution and it is not a tort it is not a tort that applies it to your statute limitations and in fact introduced my client brought that so the district court here was clearly wrong and that applies to all of those causes of action on taking the district court also addressing the issue saying that that we hadn't indian and that is the final decision by the city so if the city had denied it they'll go straight to live with that the city granted it and then goes to the citizens who do not have to follow and use guidelines as they distinguish what was before them in downchild because it was a zoning change but they said in other cases where you're talking about annexation