community with road stores and like connecting with other roads who are in the community in the very beginning that council would you help me on a detail yet and so on my mind there was a effect did the stanleys materially change their position in justifiable reliance on it and did they do any action or for variants of the action in stipulation to protect their rights so the answer is yes the stamens had relied on not because they had not filed suit against c b s early or to protect their rights before the reliance was forbearance from filing suit that is correct and that all other also a agreement there's two ways in which a party can innocence rely one is by a certain the other is by actually lines and both both were met on the bill and this case subdivision and i understand that in order to plant a subdivision you know alaska the sub divider has to do show on the plant access for every lot within the subdivision what alaska law do you have that the rest of carjackings property all of all of the lots that was subsequently part of a landmark as well they did not have access access was created as part of the subdivision process roads and such were created and dedicated to the public as part of the public roads and discovery x number three of the original stipulation and whether or not if that if the court finds that that was unconstitutional that requirement was an unconstitutional requirement and my class would not have a claim for damages let's see if i and resold it for its value burdened by an easement and the difference between those two prices is what they claim  by mr clarke's argument are that in his discussion he was saying that the municipality required harvesting to provide access that that was not an argument that was raised that was briefed on appeal it was in fact it was brief loan to the knight to the district court and it was it was waived on appeal by not arguing it in fact what the municipality the planning board required was that the issue of access  resolved with with the department and it was resolved by car got the it was resolved initially as he discussed by by the planning officer and then later it was resolved by the municipality determining that there was a substantial risk that this would be a taking and therefore they didn't didn't want to require access to to be given the other the other point is that in the proceedings below the stanleys did not argue that they had relied on the stipulation during the period of time that that it was in effect in may no argument to the district court and therefore have waived the argument that they do make to this court  preserving it in front of the district court to the extent that argument is not waived it is also not valid in fact prior to the stipulation unknown to card gostin at the time the stan would receive the promise from the municipality to that that the stanleys would be told before before any action was taken before the plot was filed as of the promise was after the stipulation the plant was going to be filed but there was still no action there was still they could be used to provide access lots of ten and eleven were still not capable of being sold by cargo themis still subject  any court action that the stanleys might wish to take and in fact that's why we're here today the stanleys in fact have have received the opportunity to bring that court action and if it is taken advantage of  t the stipulation also does not provide with the stanleys claim it provides the stipulation provided a right for the municipality to could be provided to require that access it did not end and that if they required a card out scheme was going to get it and they'd move on and they talk about damages but it the municipality did not just did they never said that it wanted that access what it was preserving was some further time to determine whether they in fact wanted to proceed with access or not in fact in a very short period of time proximately two months they decided that they did not want to proceed they did not want to ask for access they the stipulation gave them two choices and they chose that option but that if i understand this you're saying the municipality decided to back out of the stipulation or rather not exercise thinking between if they didn't they didn't have to back out of the stipulation the stipulation preserved both options either to proceed with access or not the one thing that needed to be corrected from the stipulation was that the stipulation said that lots ten and eleven would not be sold until that request was made now now why isn't there reliance and they can turn the stipulation into  to promise them access but second of all it's not reliance because it's not reliance on any provision that requires access because it didn't because there is no provision requiring access it most it's in for a period of time in that period of time the stanleys were able to intervene in file as penance against the cost effectively preventing harvesting from from selling it until the district court decided on summary judgment that they had no claim with something that is done for the benefit of the dominant state that's the context in which benefit is used it is not dispositive of language in this agreement but certain it is actually the stanleys position that the october fourth two thousand and one stipulation conferred upon them greater rights than they had prior to it and that is not the case the municipality did no harm to the stanleys and i emphasised this point and used that language specifically because they still retain the the ability to do what they had the opportunity to do before bring suit and see conjunctive really there is not a material a material change in the stanleys opportunities because the dispute had been defined to lots and eleven the adjoining parcels but lots ten and eleven were still not subject to sail under the stipulation and the stanleys not only had their opportunity to seek  protection if any was conferred upon them and the protection that was conferred upon them was limited to the ability to bring suit municipality always retained the option whether or not to exercise right to require a cargo of steam to provide access i must respectfully dispute with your honor's phraseology back out it's simply not appropriate this was a choice and the stipulation makes it clear what the parties were thinking about they were thinking about defining the risks the municipality did ascertain that this would result in inverse condemnation and that luxembourg was the appropriate the lesson to be drawn