and operates the streets and we allege the operation on the streets and on therefore they're responsible for them it's no different than any other strange situation show that this was intentional one case one mistake there is no requirement of active  here you're saying that excepting the streets on the streets to be there without any modification i suppose you're arguing that's government induced and th which the relationship between your relief against the contractor construction people and the government well first of all before the taking of the right to put the water through here and reduction in value afterwards and then the universe condemnation those questions that you've been asking for taint of them one is that before we get into whether that was flooding or not we need to examine the nature of the action that he city took in this case and then the other argument i want to focus on is causation and the reason we need to step back and look at what action the government in the first place which is alleged to have given rise to the injury is that we need to distinguish between a towards and a taking and in this case there are only two actions that the city has been led to take the first one was that they approve the plans and designs and constructions can give a moment to the private developer to  make this residential development for baps it appears that council has conceded that you cannot have a takings claim based merely on a city from the low one of which was can a city be liable for takings merely for the approval and then the next question the us has well how about if they accept ownership of the streets and the and the drainage the allegations that they've made pertaining to the streets and the streets as interrelation with within that development the first thing yes i'm like a lot of cases which border and they were not designed not constructed by the city the city accepts these streets inside such developments rises to the level where there is either in thames or foreseeability that this could cause some sort of flooding down the line remember these things are not even a to six fifteen motions so you know we're we're not dealing with the fact that this was a six fifteen or that there were three and if there's evidence that maintaining the streets the way they are because of flooding all this other property that would have here to arguably checkmark the government induced fighting and then when you look at it you know the duration you've got the and that seems to be when when you got this u s supreme court position on taking at it there was a game changer compared to the old law correct your honor it's a game changer in terms of only one the streets do not well even to the line that marks the boundary between these two properties the streets if you look at a boom you can look at google map you can look at the damages as opposed to consequential damages so you can like you said the streets are a contributing factor there consequential damages and you have a tort action for that when you're talking about a game taking of any immediate controlling more self sufficient cause and then consequential they say not produced without the concurrence of some other event attributable to the same or as you know cause so look where the submitting is if you look contributing factor of this but they say no because a takings is different from a torque and just because the streets are adding to the water when you have allegations that clearly say that the floor of the water  natural the key thing here is natural flow of the water was flowing off words away from the property of the planners back in ninety seven something was done not by the city that and you're not able to charlotte that's the proximate cause you're not going to be able to show it in this kind of private development it's impossible well let me just one quick question and that is anywhere in the into the house strangely and what does that have to do with our case here day he talks about proximate cause in that case i guess you probably would but it had nothing to do with our case t saying whether or not we have a complaint sufficient to get back here and so there's a reversal the trial judge will will have a hearing on whether or not they have to file the condemnation