it was also done pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement between the city of champagne and the sea where t v whereby the m t d promised to extend their services and the next territory that was and point five there is the section of the local mass transit district there that empowers existing mass transit districts to annex contiguous territory but only if th territory is within a municipality is not farmland and is not a part of another mass transit because of all the mass transit act of course i a comprehensive and detailed statutory scheme that addresses by the legislature how to create expand the next and administer local mass transit systems it includes provisions for how to create your for this and that but the legislative intent behind section eight point five which is one of those is obvious and apparent from its terms this section empowers existing mass transit systems to extend their services into newly urbanized areas on the edge of to to keep up with urban growth and expansion and it supports the goal of maintaining a single unified past transit system to serve a single metropolitan area this goal is a goal that  share by the federal government the state government the regional transportation planning and all local it's the object and the logic of a single unified mass transit system we believe to be self question is here in this case analysis for that question is who decides whether i'm existing mass transit system should be extended to include developed area on the edge of a city should it be decided by the residents of the subdivision or neighborhood or should it be decided by the larger community of which they are a part  interests of the majority of residents in the neighborhood might not always be the same as the interests of community as a whole weighting the interests of these two groups is the responsibility of the lives of the legislature section eight point five answers the question be answered in favor of the interests of the greater community that much is clear for section eight point five if very specific and limited circumstances required are take advantage of the benefits of the city of which they are a part they go downtown they use the streets they take a parking space they add to the air po under these circumstances there is one community it is only fair that they share in the cost of managing or maybe even solving these urban problems and they should not be allowed to pick which local government services they are willing to pay for when they join city maybe they're willing to pay for pakistan but they don't want to pay for mass transit maybe they're willing to pay for for preserve but they don't want to pay for fiber this is wrong it's unnecessary and in the case of mass transit the legislature has made their decision well there are cases cited that have shearing  said services between found to be peddled by the courts but of course in this case if the if the question of sharing is and we are dealing with two identical local government entities they are both mass transit districts and the cases involving identical process my opponent makes the argument that in two thousand and six when the southwest district came into being it no pursuant to the terms of a point by now back to the sharing issue and why the trial court was wrong allowing illinois quite clear the two local governments of the same kind of character created under the same statutory scheme with the same identical purposes and ours cannot tax and share the same territory school in that case the court said they didn't get along and the high school could be put over here and not necessarily conflict with this high school on this side by the other district but i submit to you when you're talking about mass transit you're talking about the entire area being provided with mass transit and if it's to work and be fission you can't say they have decided not to take their busses there they can decide not to put their busses there because that's not what mass transit is mass transit i should say two of the identical type of government that you've been allowed to share so as it stands now the people who live in that section both operate without really will be taxed twice they are being taxed twice as we speak now this fact on the record will show that the tax rate in the southwest district is rather low they don't provide service they have no plans to provide service they even announce that if we prevail in this case they'll disclaim the reason is because because they don't give up busses and the fact that they may be people who want to come visit them they would have to make their own decisions as a neighborhood that left the community as a whole decide what's best for them but the legislature has  entities is it permissible is it permissible under illinois law is it permissible under the local mass trans mass transit district act the answer is clear i think on two points counsel has argued that it has been established eleanor hall you cannot have two governmental entities that overlap territory at the same time same place that provide the same services that that is in previous cases where you have overlapping local governmental entities dealing with packing plants licensing for packing houses and so forth and those cases particularly bart law went through this discussion and said the rule of two municipal corporations not exercising their powers within the same territory same time should be practically and reasonably in force to not to overburden systems with taxes and yet to be allowed to do so in such a way as to allow the furnishing of needful facilities so it's not an absolute bar and particularly particularly in this double taxes for the same sanitary plan you don't have that transportation is very different thing you have a market place different routes different times different pete and it would not be necessarily an  overburden for the two governmental entities to overlap and both tax their citizens because you're going to provide him with quite frankly maybe twice as much of the service are you suggesting that you are a marketplace you have a constituency that in other words is the board of trustees of these champagne southwest m t d going to do that now they defer planning because they are waiting to see what the results of this litigation are because obviously it will impact greatly their plan why yes it does because why wait got it seen what what is going to remain in existence is see them cheese routes but remaining in place where they do or they don't could then impact your decision on how much money you're going to stand on trying to buy a verb but this goes to the second point even if it is determined that there is an absolute bar under illinois law that's common law that has long been talked about by the only supreme court that has been done and why the particular statutory provisions of this act because section three point one of the local mass transit act says that in the formation of a district by referendum that participating area that's the area to be defined in the referendum and voted upon can be formed under the act without regard to boundaries of counties or other political subdivisions or municipal corporations and by the way a local mass transit district is defined as useful corporation section three of the act so right there the general assembly has deemed it to a population to vote into existence a mass transit transit district under their referendum without regard to the boundaries of another with section eight point five that allows a annexation buying existing this great mass transit district to an x developed territory that's continuous to it one which says by referendum you can create a district without regard to other mass transit districts and that would suggest that the general assembly has resolved this issue that the council has talked about the problem to the overlap in this first two taxes if the voters go out and want to create their own district they do so they can do so if there is an existing district on top of them and if that continuous it's not the taxes farmland and is not part of another local mass transit district and it doesn't say when it should not be another part of the local mass transit is does not say at the time and i or property owners they are going under that governmental entity and that this power is only granted to mass transit districts local mass transit districts it's a power that not even use or operate into adjacent governmental entities is to do so with the permission of those governmental entities and the question is what is the rational basis for allowing this special privilege the answer would be not a city if a city which provides the most benefits to the citizens protecting them from fire police sanitary sewage utilities that cannot force of late and it's the only time a city can very limited circumstances where you bus service more vital than the providing of police and fire is it more vital than a drainage district which cannot forcibly and acts the more important than sanitary sewage which is a district cannot force of  and and because of back then it sounds like a mass transit to this very have been given a power there in fact no other unit of local government let alone the other two major types of transportation  utilized by the c u m t v to the detriment of the adjacent governmental entity in this case it's the c s w m t d it's in the class of adjacent governmental entities and whatever scenario you have were the drainage district wants to territory that is in another drainage history that's the class that they're a part of that's a special privilege then given to the local mass transit districts under eight point five which should therefore be a no an the legislature this is reading correct the statutes absolutely not and i will tell you why the language that he's referring to in three point one where it says that a new mass transit district can be organized without regard to the  they mean without regard to whether your overlapping a city will be on the city you're part of a county not a city or in a township not that's what other means it's other political subdivisions other than mass transit  the notification i commit means that we could have hit withdrawing from mass transit if they don't feel they want to use it or pay for it this can't be in time for the legislature you know council has said that there w what would these people in this neighborhood do pay for a van to drive them around their block but if they wanted to go somewhere else they'd have to get off the plane and walk across the street buy a ticket and get on the other bus it's true here you have your own mass transit