oh thank you very much so obviously everyone that has read the submissions i will try not to repeat myself but i would like to emphasize a few things for the court and  were pointing out a few things  on there is no expiration discriminatory language that would obviously and you know just because perhaps you know applause and the reason they're shook so i believe this should not rely upon the postman case we're number of reasons number one it's obvious that a district number t piece they specifically mentioned living facilities as being excluded in the residential district there so that court held that there's a facial challenge discriminatory language there can't be fish challenged miss this assisted living facility is not being treated any differently than any other uses that are prohibited and and that  discriminatory area specifically for single family dwellings and no one else apparently need apply it's not the case now because the anybody could make an application in the our aaa zone to build for example in this case an assisted living facility or up someone wanted to build a storage facility or some other type of development so so there's certainly no record evidence before this court of the lower court that indicates that any any any claims made by palace it and that would simply be speculative you know we obviously your disability you only belong in our am so i don't believe it does and again because the the focus of focus needs to be on the expressed terms of the language in this case the essentially told this is where you belong there well the reason why is because when you look at a face a challenge the court is supposed to excise or remove the discriminatory language so keep to your honor's to see that the definition of a one family while it expressly excludes any quote group home or congregate living facility in which a person continued occupancy is dependent upon the handicapped may have little choice but to live in a commercial home if they desire to live in a residential neighborhood and i would add as well admit it to the district court in this case that any analysis and to discrimination  absolutely yes tell us where sure specific to what handicap is what i'm asking short just give me a moment  or page twenty three dollars of the a connex the court concludes plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the cities are the only ordinances are discriminatory on their face meaning that they treat the handicapped meeting congregate care differently under other individuals because blocking a well unit in discriminatory against persons with handicaps because of their having a handicap that part of the analysis is on pages twenty to twenty prohibition of anything except eight specific uses none of which could be an assisted living facility but just for thirty five dollars to forty six dollars are meant to be assisted living facility in the room district and this is important the city has said it wants to have the help here a village that's to get in the factual record at this juncture if i chose to make a faithful challenge and we're just looking at the faith of the lord i say yes and your honor if i may st of all we're not saying anyone is a bad person different treatment family housing is being kept out two things are on it one is that the assisted living facility are committed in the renzo and the city has defended its choice to try to make people live in the ruins of as a result of trying to create treatment of the handicapped no i well now there's there's where the rabbit went in the hat right at the end because it sounds exactly like a disparate impact argument until you get to that point break it down take what you're saying is it's true that this applies to everybody across the board but it going to hit these individual most hard now isn't that a statement of this pretty impact and not a statement of this protest because by terms it's not  this this means they're treating our people differently if it's by the terms of the ordinates the self no more pay unit facility could be put in there no apartment building no weaning thing done nothing can get in there except their family dwelling how does that speak at all question of whether somebody handicapped or not how do you get there unless the way you get there is to say yeah but outside the outside the red you know outside bit poor cork the organ they said things that show there really are crime and he kept unless you do that how do you get from within the four corners of the document that is the word and where you want to get within the four corners of the document please look at pages or thirty five dollars or thirty six dollars of the dyna packets which is the definition of the room district which includes assisted living and says a lot because the city wishes  create a health care village you can also look at the procedural history recited in the complaint which shows that my client did work with the city for two years to try to get it to permit this use in the arc up people your offer is pretty one only if there is an application by somebody or a desire by somebody to build a facility like my clients in one of those districts where anything happened nd with respect t and this was pointed out of the house reported ages eighteen and twenty four which has been quoted by this court many times quoted by other courts of appeals many times so your your position effectually is any any district that limited to a single that this is where it would be good for you to be is all by itself by necessary negative implication a statement that you will never be allowed anyplace else no but we have the com collection of factors shows that the city here without necessarily having any malicious intent is trying to push handicapped people not to choose to live where they choose to live but to live in the rent district and it being meager purpose the fair housing act was just martin and he put it below to invalidate land use regulations that limit the ability of handicapped individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the community which is language from hobson's which in turn was called into the beautiful two door house that fits right in with the residential neighborhood it's a three story structure my my client submitted many many many drawings and plans to the city council they're all attached to that written declaration in the record the standard of review is abuse of discretion and another is the record is complete as far as the american gumption speech or if the city has new evidence for arguments you can put them before judge mark nadi and the permanent injunction procedure and assisted living to be built is a it in and of itself something that has to be looked at in conjunction with our aaa and shows that discrimination on account of the argument i apologize for the interruption there's a message playing in the courtroom if you just heard a moment please appreciate everybody's arguments we've got