provided by h t and did not provide any evidence or arguments to refute the  because the neighborhood housing failed to prove nearly conclusively that it met the third fourth fifth and sixth method is factors which determine the constitutional issue of whether property is with that change but will gertrude's face that entirely because although they passed a resolution to address just spokes question they had in fact a resolution that they passed so i'm not either resolutions and all of that but protein i held even retirements held community health services of health that documents aren't enough you have to show actual use so for this tax year which  necessary but not no the fact that they have never even that isn't enough either well because it's not only an out of action policy you have to have a few waves reduction policy they haven't that the recipients have to force the payment of rent right that would be in by definition that any item funded residential facility would never qualify for us to texas unless as the department held in the white of ca case that that particular property was part of a continuum of services provided by the owner of the property and it was a necessary component of that service in fact contrary to councils argument but why don't you see a case is department's position  going through and basically holding that the why did you see a property would not have qualified for these very reasons that i had a requirements for saying take it out it's a necessary component of a continuum of services when you have properties in your whole charitable purpose is to take a person from total inability to pay like the women shelters that they had here or here if hypothetically if neighborhood housing had definition trying to get these folks to be self sufficient to pay but i guess what you know more of a philosophical question doesn't really impact this case but it just strikes me that you've got here the governmental disconnect between i the partner revenue in terms of when they're out there funding all these things or what they i think is a charitable purpose but because of their regulations supreme court and supreme seemed to indicate as this court recognized that the six factors are in three court said prevent that kind of five of the six identified a charitable organization and then the supreme court seem to suggest that the fangled illinois sixty on my second at five fifteen said to determine the constitutional issue of charitable use is one which we have held that the use of the property benefits an indefinite number of persons funds are derived mainly from public and private charity charities since to all and without obstacles and the use excludes that is a constitutional issue but the legislature cannot change  and property is used only for people who can pay if there is any charity involved it's the subsidy from here from the dove organization not from the property here neighborhood housing does not provide you will for their clientele that they want to move into subsidized housing that would make the whole program tax exempt i would necessary component so even though this particular piece is only used to for paying people it has to be a necessary component of a larger place larger charitable organization of a charitable purpose and that has to be the primary purpose so you would have to have as a why did ca the primary purpose to take people from absolute best to ship to self sufficiency by use the word homeless shelter yes the homeless the homeless plus especially incurring agreeing upon or if it's only a few of the major of opinion but we can cite the prior opinions that have the same presidential value so want to address are neighborhood housings main argument seems to be that they don't understand that they have the burden of proof and the fact that you can present some evidence and we don't in the apartment doesn't really but your evidence doesn't grants constituted contributions or donations they had a brochure listing organizations and that's a record of page c thirty seven but they just list the organizations that don't need doesn't say how much they donated it to is the director mr murray walker's testimony kind of explaining about this two hundred thirty seven dollars of restricted assets came under strict i read that testimony over several times myself i submit that it is begun inconclusive because you still cannot tell what strings are attached to this restricted around restricted assets whether they were donations whether they were fees this is th specific details so the court itself can make the determination that this was a donation there is nothing in this record from which this court can determine that any of those funds was the nations as opposed to these service and again they said there are holes in their bylaws which that's true those articles it's necessary for those articles and bylaws to be in place stating your church purpose stating that you're going to take donations but without evidence of actual donations the evidence is not clear and conclusive and again that's the provino case and the community health care case the evidence that there are five hundred one c three corporation again is a statutory requirement under fifteen sixty five c but as the court in even held it's necessary but not sufficient to prove that you receive the funds that your churc the case on the issues of the fourth and fifth method is fact that charities provided to all with no obstacles articles and bylaws are insufficient without actual pay that's a requirement they did pass that resolution but you actually have to show that you've either reduced somebody or you've allowed them to continue to stay  here the only evidence is of actual use is that they kept them and then worked out and arrangement where they could pay later they didn't reduce the fees they did in the lemonade the repayment they just basically charitable use is letting people space of place for free or providing them you know severely intensely reduced rents that you make up the difference yourself through your charitable fund here although there was a reduced market right reduced rental income as far as the market rate of the the funding came from  because they have held this is determining house of charitable use the constitution