sure and i would love to see a response or a sorry a final ruling to the administrative review of the zoning boards various before to which i would prefer that but i don't think it's no no i don't know that and quite well because i think there is a distinction between compelling the exercise of discretion through mandamus which is know all of those decisions of mandamus is allowed to a healthy exercise of discretion but not the means of the exercise which is really exactly what we have what the broader are compelling in force that's why i say there's a distinction between compelling the exercise of discretion and actually the means is here we see the other  this mess is in excess of what the various allowed and in fact people act the zoning board of appeals hearing where they granted the variance the defendants in this case asked for leave to amend that request for various to increase it be know that it's not sufficient the variance that they received a true and sort of order is not sufficient and therefore fancher question we still have a cause of action because relief the pain of seats is considered discretionary ministerial therefore mandamus is inappropriate as a remedy really well how are you interpreting the maze is applied to the means against the city on this particular issue that the judge based your dismissal that's right right but and i'm going to ask is there any way the whole united states of america words that's what we're looking for if they're not obligated if it's a if it's not mandatory that the city and force its own order were this lacks any meaning right there has it was not perform it wasn't performed at all that's right or according to law but but i also want to be clear jack we are not seeking a mandamus to order how the city proceed just that the city proceeds that the city enforces its law there are a number of ways the city go about correcting this violation especially after the fact it's a little different it's not it's not the usual way to come alleged injury but what is your injury well st of all there's access to the property itself to which there is no on that particular site section years should not be and is not directed to it is directed here because it is it would have to but it should not be included in couches that is specifically met as an allegation as part of  availability of the variance which is which is available to the neighbors in any zoning matter shows that strict adherence in every case to the two foot setback as written is not in fact require the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the variance words correctly his shooter because to obtain a writ of mandamus is right much point to some provision of the zoning ordinance that imposes a ministerial duty on the part of the city to take that's great your honor we haven't made that particular break this argument i say a couple things one any question about rightness should cut against miss rhine because that just further shows that she doesn't not have a clear right to relief but furthermore again just to here now i'd like to address one other particular form of relief that the complaint seeks which is the revocation of a permit for her neighbor's house that claim fails as well because the zoning ordinance provision on permit revocation express says that the city may revoke a permit in certain circumstances and that may language further shows that permit revocation is discretionary as well so in the absence of any ministerial duty on the part of the those are all straight out of the out of the zoning ordinance itself including the request that the city of chicago take the necessary actions to ensure compliance concerning the zoning ordinance in the building you know so that as i said there's a catch all and that's what we want we're not directing this not asking the circuit court to direct the city to do x y or z we are asking that mandamus speak ordered to compel compliance