we're no case to progress this precise factual matter but having said that there was more than enough factual information of the record including months of legend of the party plane and then the written agreements attached to it to a sandwich that this is completely within the confines of a park right there that is good enough will fly free of sex but on top of that it supplies access to this with what way supplies access to both the restaurant which is recreational in nature specifically being created and given this space within the park district building to promote the health benefits and recreational interests of teachers of the park that's what it's there that agreement right there is sufficient to establish the application of free will says the fact that he has a second floor bathroom in the restaurant if you like photograph that's the bathroom is the same  for contribution against the park district are dealing with a condition of public property that brings it within three one of six we've met that part of the definition the second part is to use for recreational purposes in the third part is including that limitation it goes in explains some of the refereed recreational types of property the key part of the including but not limited to just that list is not exhaustive that list is demonstrative but it's not inclusive and so we have pavilion number three with the nelson park and then the restaurant and bathroom area within the billion number three all fall within the definition of recreational property under three hundred six when we because judge webber said that wallace dealt with a whole bunch of commercial enterprises it navy pier but here we have only one and that's then wait a minute though that makes this case a subset of wast and he said well no i think especially the stake because there you had a walk way which provided access to a whole bunch of different commercial and retail facilities here are just one i think that's different that was his argument for wallace nothing more nothing less that it is that the decision to chelsea socially here so i don't believe the beach house actually made that argument i believe the beach house made instead  different arguments i neither of which was that i could be just instead argued one odd that you'd have to be able to show that recreation occurred on the walkway or stairway and then the second argument was the free one all three which is the design i stated brings work i come back with the number of cases where three one of six has been applied to a whole bunch of different kinds if we're going to say even for what we have not recreational let's talk about the number of cases where three one of six is applied within the confines of a park to no recreational type property and so i talked about kahnawake which has a drainage ditch that is far from recreation as of yet i talked about user which was the walkway heading into the community center i talked about the diving case which springfield said well we're going to find that the immunity may not extend this far as a sidewalk for example outside of recreational property and in fact in cash and absent the court used the term founded court there is no question that this building fillion number three and the walkway within that brazilian are within the confines completely of nelson park nelson park is a recreational property and therefore that potential dispute down the road between cas local public entities from negligence liability to promote the creation of recreational areas and based upon the wording of the lease agreement itself which does everything to show that restaurant specifically there are for the enjoyment the health the benefit of patrons of the park and in fact even live requires the park requires the restaurant to provide access whenever the re the parking lot of walkways outside of of various recreational facilities are incidental to the recreational function is within the park again but that i guess that goes back to my initial under increased usefulness say that there is a not recreational structure inside a recreational facility and there may be an e m t if that's structure increases the value of the recreational this this was  in the recreational facility itself and in my hypothetical i'm quoting the recreational facility the actual restaurant self because i disagree that the entire park can be everything in the park is deemed recreational so to be internally consistent i think i recreational activities do occur in the park we just know it's a park and so i think there is a little bit of a feeling for the record specifically demonstrate that this park in general is a recreational facility  as i've already stated i don't want to be repetitive there's nothing there's nothing to demonstrate that this particular walkway was recreational character nothing like in baghdad where there was the force first painted nothing like in wallace where there was an section three hundred six contemplated determination of immunity were founded public property for example it is intended to afford immunity to a playground including not recreational structures within it that is the very language from  honor i had a couple of points that i jotted down quickly on that one as it's the first time i've heard that argument but i'm not going to say the way replies are i'm saying it's the first time i've heard that argument in fact the reason why we're here on a three wood appeal is because there is third party complaint the pleadings the initial complaint the third party complaint both plead that this is a park district owned building within the confines of nelson park i started out my argument at the very beginning and i said we could stop right there the park district is going to be said to the restaurant in the restaurant is going to exist solely for the purpose of serving the public benefit and recreational interest if there are in fact says this agreement is entered into something to a limited by that principle it couldn't be more clear so that is a sufficient basis the reason why basis becomes important by the way as i touched on in my initial brief is because it is the supreme court has confirmed in epstein ah and in argument and in other cases  nine and at that point the burden shifted to the beach house and i touched on this in my brief michael back to i had heard the argument before but insufficient evidence because the only arguments the peach house raised when the burden shifted to the beach house on the two six one thousand issue excuse but that was one argument it was a legal argument that was raised in response it was not if you don't have sufficient evidence and the second argument was that we had crude we have our district that crude that recreation had occurred i'm just walk away and that's when i went back to the whole panoply of cases like cited which says you don't have to show that recreation occurred on the specific area where the injury took place that actually goes to observe actually an interesting question in analogy the same time which was