evolution of the case of course we are here because the district court judge dismissed this case and finding that the federal courts like jurisdiction and then he had a secondary finding that there  was a necessary party that had not been joined we disagree that the federal courts like jurisdiction i think we're going to demonstrate that and i think we have in the brief but with respect to the necessity of joining the  do i think you developments let me tell you why the property right attached to the place this or in this case under the original language of the ordinance which was not in any by doing that they have delegated that's why they're necessary judge and also by doing what they've done they have they have delegated the control of a public forum and the first amendment but they are renewable instantly and i say that that's my understanding that from reading the law but from my experience with respect to these issues i have never heard of a permit not being renewed when the payment still have a private in the private entity in this particular case there could be many that are going to then make a determination as to time place and manner of a first amendment right there can be no question that there's a first amendment right involved in this court on two different occasions addressed that issue and the county was a party in both of them the first one in s l c persist clark county i think one of your on the panel the county ordinance at that point wanted to prohibit leafleting but they acknowledged in the ordinance that if you had a news rack in the same place where you would have an individual it was ok to put that leaflet in a news rack they didn't want the individual standing there because there were too many of them and it was blocking the vestry and traffic in the second case the venetian case the county was a party and that one of the county urged the court to find that the sidewalks although they were in front of the venetian and on top of a nation on property or a public forum how can they now come in here and say that they're not a public forum they are but what they've chosen to do is to delegate to the land owner the eight cited by the circuit in the year two thousand in this instance the conduct in smith it was a voluntary secession by the university of washington and i know one of you was on there but i just don't remember  and this court found that where the conduct has changed and there's no continuing violation in the case this vote that's not the situation here the conduct has not changed and there is a continuing violation  change in the law this is not in most case but what it did do and what i would agree with is that it does require now the joining of the landowner along with the county because it is the the way it was that begin with i don't think that the land owner needed to be there because it is a governmental function but when the government decides as we're going the last thing we're privatizing a lot of what was formerly government activity when the government decides that it's going to allow the privatization of the determination of first amendment rights and it's going to give their decision making power to someone with a huge solid record had not i'm not sure i understand why why can't this happen if you're simply financially against the private land owner do you have to have the quality as a party and you still there and why and why do you need the count some sort of understanding or agreement or what my my my point is that the private landowner would not be in the position of exercising governmental rights but for the government delegating them by their inaction but maybe three would really require the joining of both the policy and the private private party slash state well that may or may not be right and if it would require under the current and sidewalks with or the complaint having anything to do with the first entire case here what is a property right or whatever rights they have it doesn't depend on the interpretation the first amendment  here this is they're saying we're wrong for not abridging the press out there i mean i never heard such a number that's what they're basically claiming that we should have the press on these private sidewalks and only allow people with permits out there right now we're saying you don't need a permit it's like if somebody showed up and asked for a liquor permit and we said you don't need like a permit out there is no place we permit it is or need a permit is right there in a residential area the rest the  private property after the amendment of the are not it seems to me impossible to read the ordinance that way my question to you is the question that we basically have to the first half of this argument is why doesn't the amendment of the ordinance make this case argument the same then with respect to walking that we're not stopping anybody from locking or from it getting or from doing anything on the sidewalk private landowners so therefore you don't have  are an indispensable quantity in your eyes and see what we can do i mean it's because you we are not regulated so the court cannot order us to issue permits out there because the county government is not step instead you need a permit out they'll definition was it has he dedicated which is a term of art we use in all city and county things when you dedicate a property for a roadway that means it's deed it is given to the government entity for that purpose we're not regular press thank you can delegate the regulation to the private land owner and the public forum that goes over their property but in order to do that even if the private land owner operates in an unbiased fashion he he or she or it still has to comply with first amendment time place and manner requirements and that's exactly what isn't happening here and that's exactly standing against the county we are standing against a private land on really good standing against the county because the county is ultimately responsible for the activities of the landowners when the county chooses to regulate through the north and to the south of that