successful in achieving compensation through that process that you have sought then it seems to me it would make the takings claim moot because there would be no under the land use rules the county would not proceed with those to hold the property side so that it could be acquired later by the original conservation of already as part of their plan the question the state law question how i want to certain or unresolved estate law i'm not talking about application of the facts to the facts of your case but is state law uncertain within the meaning of home no because the state law that's applicable here is the banking cases where were developments in our walked in order to bank property or future acquisition buddy who knew this area of the law had a very strong suspicion that the court was finally going to get around overruling williamson county let's assume for the purposes of my question that you were fully on notice that williamson county was very likely to be over or a still more variation on this let's assume than williamson county had already been over you nonetheless st file in state court if you file court and then cede later to file in federal court is there some reason why the federal court shouldn't abstain to get the decision that's on the in the suit that you've previously filed in state court go in federal court by basically a parallel suit but with the with only the federal takings claim under one thousand nine hundred and three is there some reason why the federal court should not in that circumstance abstain given that the state court soon is already pending  and it seems to me also that taking your argument to its logical extension you would view there being no opportunity for a this demonstrates because this is there was this is one where the process didn't know or worry because the county needed with these other agencies to hold this property aside that's different than a regulatory body we got up to that point where they finally admitted that yes that's not why we're not when you go forward because we need your car or light that's different than a regular repeating these where it's you have to wise you're going to build something we got to the point where they said said they wanted to put the freeway through the middle of our property and said you can't build on that because the pre waste coming in we need your property to be cheaper because if there's houses on it's going to cost us a lot of money that's this kind of case and so understood the answer you just gave me to say that even without there you would have no need to exhaust state core and if that's true i don't see where there has to do filed a takings challenge a local habitat conservation program in state court and that was six to litigate virtually the same lawsuit and a parallel track in federal court like certain state law issues that would either moot the federal takings claim or presented in a very different auster because of this they just report was correct in electing thank you very much your honor so just on that last one to be we don't need to wait for the plan to be interpreted the cuz the county and its related indies have already acted that they bank this property already would have houses built on it and people would be living in on it if they had not bank this property so it's not about an interpretation that when they have already acted the county has said