subjective emotional state of mind of certain owners on a certain date that's just not a fair reading of the opinion of your heart and it's not that that he that he did that what he did what he  to the difference between the based yes and a basis there may have been ten bases ten motivations ten attractive features and maybe one was larger and another was smaller and another was quite small  a but but you seem to be asking us to adopt the idea that only one can count and you're saying the one that should have been recognized is the tax incentive and therefore no other one is permissible to look at and bothered to look at this you know everybody decided to look at this in hindsight which for your testimony on the other side that mind seems completely unreliable why didn't people look at other places private place and then and there they were circulating around the same mr roberts would you begin by answering the question that's been raised by judge study can judge by ours and perhaps others about why the record here is so narrow you had the burden of proving investment back expectations one might have assumed that you would question the investors call them as witnesses find documents relating to comparable deals and and build a record  both with regard to these particular persons and deals and what's been described as the whole industry but it appears that wasn't done why not your honor i believe that it served as a function of state and real counsel for the government is the expectations that our clients in fact that we have how do we know that if they didn't testify how do we know what their in fact expectations were when they put their money up they did  three buildings within minneapolis metropolitan area but i'm talking about the individual investors will not talk about the general partner one person i'm talking about everybody will put up their money to be a part of the partnership mr byrne are in is a typical investor in these deals what was the reason why that person invested in the deal nothing a person who essentially was a general partner who twenty years later says yes i invested because i c moreover if they justify the same outcome that's a decision we should make looking at the record as it exists now in the appeals before us we shouldn't say we have to so conclude because of something sit in senate senate eight on a different ve and i think the circumstances make it right clear this is this is a case where the taking had already begun and was continuing at the time the user group was entered over had not been passed and there was no indication that it would be passed this way and so these people at that time had a decision whether to take what markham of mitigation the government was offering through the use of free or simply state sit and do nothing and wait out twenty years i think it's the law should not punish someone for making a decision to accept what the government was offering by cutting off their commute compensation when in fact the price to pay for getting that medication issue of the statutory options in terms of their background tikhon's analysis if you have something new and different that hasn't already been produced here this morning well i hope i have something to offer and i think gift basket is i think everyone looks at those options carefully it is clear that they reinforce the idea that the nature of the government action here is and has the character of a t what if any use do you say the court should like to set a date in this case should look to it for anything or is it your view that we should totally ignored even though it is a presidential