city determined that it was not at least not so that we should fire the property and we commenced negotiations with the private property owner to fire it there should have been no confusion on this issue we were attempting to acquire say you can acquire property for a public road you can acquire property that was standing there that there's the potential that the roadway serves one private developer but you have to look to the public to be  she returned this case to the circuit court so that we can commence the part of the case that talks about the actual fair cash market value to be paid for the property there would have been the next phase the screw seeding after as you all know if you go hearing which is properly understood right to question that taking it once you get past that there should be at that point in time your order so consideration really is what is the value that the property owner should be it is recognition there's been recognition that the word necessary is construed by kids examining eminent domain to mean expedient recently convenient or useful to the public it doesn't mean indispensable or absolutely necessary one of the issues that the trucker had was the length of the road a circuit court can look at it like the road case was there you can't you can't determine that you're going to plan for future development was big two thousand and four it was not a development plan these are plans are in things that are outdated from time to time from the city basically shows your ears and what the uses of those areas it is easy circular because they say if you want the road we're going to take it and everybody's going to use it but under their system you come and take my driveway tomorrow and say well we have an ordinance you see everybody's going to use it currently currently right now the only proper you are that would benefit from from the way would be counted and because of there should not look at possible future development will the city abused its discretion because it's the current user that's really what we look at what the city should be looking at and not future development as it is dixon argued and if there was evidence of future development that was  evidence still show that this road was being built one time period and they had every opportunity to come up with what with any evidence they want it was the difference it's not as easy as that st that the council doesn't have to fear the city is going to be taking him dry and i think it's a valid point that he made in terms of listening to the arguments today how do you respond to it well then that argument is only valid if you  think that if you forget the fact that the city has to have a public purpose in mind for a road the city could not just take a driveway particular succession friendly's i suppose if it would be if it provided a route that the city believed was necessary but the taking of someone's driveway it would be i think very hard for us for any miss county to establish that the taking if somebody used a little driveway would be of public use here however city it many develop any agreements that municipalities center in to have a private property owner paying for and putting in public infrastructure that's a benefit to the city because it gets that city require was designated on both the comprehensive plan of the city the zoning of the city the stoning for the city so the city took it took the opportunity to contract with the private to the over to get a roof it wanted  plan that the city had to acquire property for public road and at last i do want to say sweet it is not a political here the crux of the swedish case was that the public wasn't going to be really allowed to use the parking garage to be built they were going to have to pay a fee if they wanted to park in the garage there's no fee there's no entry telling you don't need a city sticker she can use what will be a public