a safe and peaceful activity on an appropriate area which is adjacent to his home without the unreasonable interference from the city of springfield that activity of course is indicated in our brief without any distinction there by sea planes from ascending upon or d sending from lake springfield we're not asking the appellate court to require the city to have an airport or a sea or on lake springfield because it is the evidence indicates sea planes are special purpose aircraft they don't require a certified area or an airport on which to land it's  distinction between motor boats and a seaplane a boat being watercraft is that the seaplane gains access access to the lake by landing on the lake or as a motor boat would be launched planes move off and move onto the pavement and they take off from a paved i could dr snyder probably correct me but that's how i've seen them use but they are not devices because they're both an aircraft in the in a watercraft on the water which makes them absolutely unique from all the other aircraft that we're talking about here watercraft is that they're intended to fly and land on the lake and they're intended to be able to  depart from the lake safe that's the situation one of the main reasons we're taking a position yeah we think that the trial court in this case their judgment was against all the manifest weight of the evidence that we' produced showing that there was substantial clear convincing evidence that the city's ordinance was not valid and that it effectively ban seaplanes by classifying them with all other types of flying devices like the looms and parachutists none of which are designated for water operation and we have seen planes are unique and that that is their main purpose ordinances are subject to as are all municipal ordinances whether they're home rule or under some direct power from the general legislature they have to be a rational basis for due process reasons then the full protection due process relates to denial of an individual right to pursue a safe and peaceful activity backhand be done if the public interest is so great in forcing that denial but there has to be some rational rational means or method to accomplish that public purpose at the same time the classification is important because of the classification is so arbitrary meaning that it's made without any real justification or interest and bad has the effect of denying someone their equal protection then that is possible problems looks into full problem and a rational basis test ordinance being adopted without any incident whatsoever we actually found someone that was part of that group that landed and took off from the lake on a regular basis i think it was springfield aircraft sales and service and there's no incidents whatsoever but we think was that the city per half thinking it was doing something in the public interest mosque just  this or through a broad sweeping arbitrary ordinance swept in sea planes which have none of the characteristics i wouldn't be able to fly in the air that the other fine device has  city council to see if they'd like to change that my weekly we started out which is indicated in the evidence and so i'm not going to argue something that is in the avenues we started out and met with the city of springfield lp which is in charge of the lake and had multiple meetings with them trying to impress upon them that this is a different distinct type of device there is no safety concerns at all because we showed how in northern illinois in a congested chain of lakes planes take obscene planes take off and land there all the time without any incident so far more congested if you're familiar with that late than late spring feel and  got was that there is a safe landing area on the center basin of lake springfield from which there's no power transmission lines crossing the lake there is a huge open area to land we had five experts at trial all of whom were airline experts one with over twenty five thousand hours of flight time plus the sea plane expert and they came in view late spring so this is i believe y is a great place to the cheating that correct and that's where i have a hard time so tell me well we can say that the interest of the city has in public safety is not a reasonable purpose but purpose alone is not enough to satisfy the due process and equal protection rational basis standard that we have you have to have a legitimate means that is not arbitrary and classify parties who are attempting to exercise their liberty in some type of a discriminatory manner what we have shown and what our direction was that the trial court was  show that it is not a legitimate means to ban seaplanes because there are no safety concerns there are no accidents any problems with sea planes in the cities playing field in lakes playing field or any place in illinois that have been shown in fact we gave the thirteen year study that showed that there were only three clips in the entire united states none of the illinois by the way between a seaplane and watercraft and the purported reasons for the city's ordinance were we have potential hazards with late residences that are near the the lake with watercraft on the lake and with we wait that won't change it's the landing on the late that is the question and that's what our evidence show without any prediction from the city whatsoever no evidence put in by the city a that there is no possible hazard to the homes around the city the place springs this is a charge if you would that is based on some type of a fear  based on misinformation and sometimes couched in the terms of fact effect the city and their brief for the very first time brought up arguments of seaplane safety   swimmers and potential other voters or people thrown out of homes and with sea planes as the testimony showed they have the ability to hold or about the area they had ability to come down in if someone had a craft should that where we have a ordinance it is presumed valid and the burden is passed to the party attacking organs to show by clear and convincing evidence that it does not satisfy the rational basis standard and i think the case we cited that was a loophole in the case that said that when we're looking at the decision of a trial court and having made that decision on whether the decision that they made that this ordinance is or is not a valid ordinance because it satisfies the rational basis test is the manifest way the evidence either case that's what we believe the standard is and we believe that the city has admitted the standard and we could not find it a different standard if we had a state statute that was going up to the supreme court or illinois constitution article fourteen of the federal constitution u s constitution does relate to the rational basis test and there we apply the one reviewing the of evidence are included in this everything else that is all on the plane aside and the city has taken a position well we're the city we can do this and even though they have given reasons why they're doing this to protect surrounding residences protect watercraft and to avoid running into power lines when we showed all that really didn't apply in this case because all these types of activities  being concerned about those items would be protected our existing in other areas of the state and sea planes operate without any threat or hazard or any incidents so again all we're dealing with is fears that have been somehow turned into a claim of fact that really don't exist and that's where we get down to something being rational or not rational demonstrating and showing that when the power court looked up a look at the facts they saw that the sense of injustice was apparent in the learned once they looked at the clear  people that were using the parks but when we looked closer and saw that those off road or bikes for sense our watch and there was no reason to outlaw the heavier road by us which were subject to the same traffic rules as were vehicles it was not a rational basis in that rock n h case we had a similar situation where maybe they wanted to put special hours for hay racks and horses  because they were considered hazards to motor vehicles which are far more common in those areas but when we look beyond that we saw there were no studies made there were no incidence of  crashes between horses and vehicles between hay racks and vehicles and this essentially would put people out of business once again there was no rational basis and we look in our case we have no studies we don't have decided in buckley work prior to the nineteen if you would eighty nine cases aaa services which has been raised more all times in the briefs and by the court but there were two cases done after that rule unit we had a city of that instant versus the city of chicago decided also when i think of all nine hundred ninety six cases both for home rule units and that case and one of the things was brought up in that city of evanston versus city of chicago rational basis for the means adopted to accomplish your goal of whether it's public welfare or protecting residences a study would be a good indication that you did have a rational basis  and did not just make it white paint brush right sweet that right everything out there was a lawful and peaceful use that's where the liberty of someone is taken and that's what is unconstitutional plants one for water and the other five for power there are bridges roads railroad boat ramps and each house and camps all located around the lake like springfield for the purpose of that is airport where you have a landing strip and that is the only place they can land they won't land off in the field unless it's a disaster they're going to land on the landing strip we're talking about a lake surface even though they say this is the besides which is the same between a seaplane and a flight device they all come up when they all go down that by not being able to control that we are risking the recreational boat user who may be out on the water the city will be responsible and people will look to us for the fact that we did not insured their health safety and welfare by allowing the land sea plates  present the electrical lines would not cost of execution and we feel that we are not discriminating against seaplanes from other wind devices because they all have one thing in watercraft in a couple of ways what a craft operate on one level on the water see planes ivery i'm three different levels they operate in the air the operate on the water is a water craft and they operate on the taming an exemption or an exception to mormons i think by doing that we would be opening ourselves up to very equal protection argument because of the part at this right now curious whether a corporation council have shared this with or in the powers that be they are aware of the case they are aware of the transcripts i am not involved in a unit corporation counsel's office the draft or announces my unit  do want to point out to the court that most of the cases they cite have to do with streets and roads the lake is not is free to her grow it is not part of commerce it is not part of the navajo waterway it is evanston case involved a highly traveled commercial district on the border between two and fifty's the chicago and i don't feel applies in this case because the fact it had to do with  issues as far as a higher level of looking at things like the at least in case hacked and when you look at the poppy case which was also decided by this court we feel that they're distinguishable because not only do the buckley case have to do with streets i'll be  of the differences between motorcycles and motor vehicles which are very very minor because they both operate on the road they chant to some degree go walk around granted motorcycles can go more in motor vehicles but they both operate on tires ok there was evidence about the security changes that had taken place at the lake was in september eleventh two thousand and one there is an area of the lake that has now been restricted to watercraft traffic and has the state of illinois i don't have the figures in front of me they were entered in the plainest argue been there are several hundred there are a lot to see planes in the united states they do fly around from light to light  but i don't have those exact facts to be honest we feel like basically we feel that everyone is being treated the same we feel that the lake it's primary purpose when it was created was a sole source of drinking water that's the reason you look at the thing that the  this is a clear ordinance nobody's argued back what we don't know and we haven't been able to snare that anything that went into this decision which is more limited rationally related than and it's still in our argument rationally related now that's the issue back then they didn't have to keep public records like we do now thirty years ago so there are no transcripts there are no recordings there are no public documents but thirty years ago public record sole source of drinking water and we have concern for the power plants here none of this ever raise a trial raise for the first time in his brief life and they also said that preamble can't be used to  evaluate the organs all we have to look at it trial was the preamble because we were not given any reasons why did say he was trying to ban c point we passed in part of the reasons they would have which included the environmental region so we brought the end by mental evidence that says see planes are far more environmentally friendly to the lake and uses on the lake that are more votes which we have hundreds on as lake registered from time to time we showed that the exhaust of a seaplane is exhausted amount of water instead of pumping exhaust an oil into the water we showed that the weight th seaplanes made is only eight inches high i want to see players move into water compared to some of these motor boats which we've all had the experience or front waves out several feet high all through the day the fact of shoreline we have a salable run in the power lines and see point how rational is this and this goes on and on all we're hearing is word a city but the city doesn't operate for the city and they said well we may be the subject of lawsuits well we all that's part of the problem here and then the city said through their council they're concerned about controlling access if we had relations here we probably wouldn't be here or here on a prohibition entirely we proposed legislation we propose no night fine we propose laying only on an area that is designated the central basin of the lake we propose you're not going to land when you have rough water we proposed no landing during the period of time that we would have the fourth of july memorial day and labor day weekend all of this was proposed all of this was shot down because we're the city so the city is operating the state the late for the benefit of the city i mean this is part of the reason people are tired of governments today people are cities and government should be operating there five thirty for the people here we have the people interested in exercising their liberty in a safe and peaceful manner yet we have the city in the other hand maybe an ordinance to fix a problem that doesn't exist and that's when we get to the rationality city isn't rational and what they try to distinguish between buckley where we had with rights to operate on that lake the only distinction is we land of the lake instead of being launched from a lake and on the one hand the city says we would have no problem if the plaintiff in this snyder's which is in the elements also flying over a region vancouver make no noise whatsoever ready to land on the lake and we're saying while we have the liberty here and the reason is the city makes an irrational or this has no reasons to support it at trial tries to create reasons in its brief but the reasons are invalid it's irrational it should be considered unconstitutional should have been considered unconstitutional by a trial judge and his order was entered against manifest weight yeah you realize we have to find this ordinance only arbitrary correct and i think it does satisfy us wholly arbitrary i don't know the distinction between sold being appropriate for sea planes and the georgia power stations one was cited by the city there we had the army corps of engineers actually making the decision because their hydraulic changes in the water it's he planes would be safe there if that was the case we wouldn't be here today if there got regulations that we didn't comply with for the landing on the lake we wouldn't be here today if we violated the regulation just like in forcing the speed limit against both on the way and if someone was given a ticket for that we wouldn't be here today it's just the out right prohibition that we're concerned and there's nothing to stop the city from going back if this court rules in favor of the plaintiff and maybe an organist with those probation we can get pages of how to make the prohibition not probation the regulations we've given pages on what to do and what other places do where seem point should land safely and as i said before we're not dealing with