so you argue that what occurred during this interim period this nearly five year period at this point is a temporary physical thinking it would be a taping of their property for the period of time that they were excluded from it yet so they not be regulatory that you think it should be dispossessed of their property or property rights certainly they're entitled to compensation for bad period of time mr what property right is is taken by place and it talks about rail banking we'll keep this as a trade in case we ever need to use it to surrender road again that's kind of linking the trail used to the railroad use how do you deal with date what if when nick doesn't actually delay be consummated the abandonment and it too was issued if there's obviously going to be a delay until the surface transportation road actually gets everything prepared for abandonment what if the net to doesn't delay that is there still a temporary taking choose the consummation point or the net two point you started out with a need to point you know you kind of been switching to a different point the point at which the railroad tore up its trac whereas the physical taking takes the whole thing and you have the ability to use any enjoy any share of your property rights is now what happened here you know it could be you know you can't even step on  physical or regulatory a regulatory will take various uses or various aspects of the enjoyment of property whereas the physical taking takes the whole thing isn't that what happened you know i don't think so at least as to the respect of that wire well and i fear i don't think the whole thing has been taken on as i said for what can they still enjoy about their property they enjoy if the interest in th and i think if you look at this court's ruling interests and it talks about whether the action ah under the one nine hundred twenty transportation for example constituted a physical but my question is whether your interpretation of the law is because in the first instance well i think falwell and morally tells us that there is a bright line rule as to the character of the taking it's we not know when the tape is temporary or permanent it's quite clear about that there's a difference between thing called lone raises the question of whether it's physical regulatory it does not it raises the question of whether it's temporary or permanent but there's also they would be two different causes of action against regulatory taking in a physical taking are two very different things as you are doing to us they are very different things so why would a temporary taking start the clock ticking for the statute of limitations on what ultimately is a physical taking you're arguing that it was a regulatory taking so how could that work the start of a statute of limitations for what ultimately becomes a physical discuss you can't disagree with that and so if that's the case then how could this regulatory be from the start that statute of limitations clock it can't the statute of limitations doesn't begin until the cause of i don't think you have to go there i think that you can harmonize these i think you have a situation where in the government's position they are able barkley are in incorrectly decided they were your position to begin with i read everybody going back and i'm surprised this codex didn't argue because she was on all the briefs going back so you know clearly this was not the government's choice to fissions from the outset does the government believe that it's wrong to own the i think the government the exact nature of that takings clause i can i can i ask you to respond to something from cardwell when it two marks the finite start to either temporary or permanent takings by halting just reading directly from the case so as to the band the mint and it started with the permit or temporary taking right that's correct it halted a dent in it and there i placed a restriction on the lads potentially use of this property but it did not appropriate new property interest to some other part of it did not appropriate  much converted a road into a park right not in this case well what's going on then you tell me what's going on what's going on is that the in it is fully behind in its interest and to the extent that the lads and their other property owners have an interest in that property all these months and now it would do it and they all know property clear on and gordon stretch the railroad still built it won't be both there was that it can't be both now everybody's given up on that and so eventually this land will revert and the they will own the land and this is just a question of how much the damages are which analyzed as regulatory take because the limitation here there was no appropriation it's property the government you have to look at that nature of the government with respect to the property the courts told us today is because under the nineteen twenty transportation you may want to run a railroad again in it you're telling me running a railroad is not a physical adventure invasion it is a physical invasion by the railroad as a result the property own which gave them their property back on the need to and now you're taking it a second time you're saying yes you got your property back and now we may want to run a railroad government squeaky clean rights it held so in us vs security industrial bank where the government ordered it destroyed the value private property is a person a compensable taking that's what's going on here it is the only thing have gotten their property back crying you're going to see these men but instead these men remain on the property but it was the same it's meant that was on the property before so it wasn't there was nothing taken from them in the sense that