there was no evidence of good faith negotiations at the evidentiary hearing my opponent in my posing counsel's filed a cross appeal on that issue arguing that the court's sustainment of an objection based on there was no good faith negotiation and i'm conceding to their argument that the here's a objection should have been overruled so the only issue before the court is and the motion on the same day if all twenty seven twenty seventeen i doubt sought to condemn point six nine acres of the baileys homestead as part of its high speed rail project going through the bunker hill road crossing in the cuban illinois my client was served my clients were served on may nine twenty seventeen in the hearing on the motion was held on may seventeen twenty seventh before health hearing and prior to the hearing i followed the response to the motion and i objected of my client's objected to the motion because the motion did not state the the court proceeded over my client's objection and heard the dots witnesses on the motion following the evidentiary hearing of the court requested additional briefing on the issue raised in the bally's response and in order granting the motion on may twenty three twenty seventeen the dail so you are given that this case is only on appeal on one very narrow issue i don't expect this long the statute requires when i say this that you are referring to section twenty dash five dash five of the in the main ac t quick to it allows the states to proceed to acquire title to any section of a person's private property that it deems necessary for a project under section  formally adopted schedule or plan of operation for the execution of the plaintiff project in this case the high speed rail project and three the situation of the property to which the motion relates with respect to th the last sentence of this particular section states if the skidmore plan of operation has not set forth only in the motion a copy of the schedule or plan shall be attached to the motion so your and the only reference to anything relating to the nature of the acquisition of my client's property is that they say the plaintiff has adopted a schedule which calls for the acquisition of these and other parcels of land in illinois in the construction of a proposed improvement account here twenty seventeen so these reference they adopted a schedule but don't say what that schedule is and it says it is necessary to fire the parcel saw that the acquired in plaintiff's complaint here and in order to prepare the site for the project's main construction it cites my client's parcel being relevant for the construction and it says further delay in acquisition of said parcels will delay the construction  a seven three six which i don't see what that is and will jeopardize the acquisition and construction schedule of the plant this in turn will result in increased construction costs and elaine elimination of traffic hazard which will be remedied by the proposed acquired so the statute requires the condemning body to see three things actually four things the first is the legal description of property the second is state the formally adopted schedule or plan of operation so they did comply with the first part by identifying this specifically the property take but we are in my my contention was a trial court is here that the motion that i just reciting to you does either state formally in the motion or attached to the motion and self destruction plan because it would be to bloom yes but the first exhibit this case was simply twenty five pages  that what it means to have a formally adopted scout or a plain what does that mean there is a case called city of chicago versus st john's united church of christ it's a second case twenty ten and in that case the city of chicago was condemning some properties for the expansion there or here airport and one of the properties being condemned was a church next to the church of the cemetery and the city the city of chicago wanted to relocate soon the bodies to another location which led to a very interesting fact pattern in the case but one of the arguments raised by landowners and those interested in the ceased was whether or not there was a formally adopted schedule or plan with the motion submitted with the motion the court stated that this language of the statute is unambiguous and that in this case the chicago case the motion contained as scheduled start and end date as well as the city provided a specific timeline a start date and end date with a specific project the o'hare expansion project that affected the property in question the court said we determine that there has been sufficient wind for section twenty five f five s be involved in this very case i mean are even under those that that they reference to what was provided motion again it's not stated case exactly what was in the motion filed there's no star or end date for this particular project and i don't believe there's any kind of statement as far as what the project is and you're right i actually somewhat take issue somewhat i do take issue with kind of the holding it in the city of chicago or is it seen john case because the statute specifically says that the motion misstate the formally adopted schedule or plan of operation for the execution of plan this project and the situation the property to which the motion relates if it's if it's not a reference with then the motion itself it's not set forth fully that is the set you says that if this head or plan of operation is not set i believe that the statue requires more because of the public policy involved and when the state of illinois or any condemning authority seeks quick take of a person's property that's it it's extreme remedy that to actually take a person's private property and and they can do so with very little notice of the property in this case my client list serve my client was served on already to provide certain information within the motion itself is because of the short lag time between the following in the motion and then in the court order taking property to give it gives property owners some idea what's at stake at here like for example in this case i attended the hearing and i was handed the church in or attached to the motion i assume that the general  were granting property or some might be some notion of due process that as part of the process that they recognize in this case is that we're going to make the condemning party provide that at a minimum the formally adopted schedule or plan of operation for this particular project will council have brings me to something that i have yet to wonder about reviewing this matter do we need to undergo a mandatory versus directory analysis in matter before the sport now is whether or not the motion for which take contain the statutorily required documentation to satisfy the statute and  largely recited the statute and what it must state and so i'll just refer to our motion it's our position that the motion for media vesting of title did comply with the statutory requirements it did state a plan a schedule and the method in which the particular partial played into that plan and as you'll see in the motion itself it says that the plaintiff has adopted a schedule for acquisition of the partials of land in macugen county illinois in the construction of the pros proposed improvement in calendar year two thousand and sevent year two thousand and seventeen is it to time it's not in big us it's not certain it's most twelve months and could be as little as one day we're at the end of the year but we're saying that the plan is that has been adopted to complete these improvements in calendar year two thousand and seventeen normally if these types of cases are going to extend many years as did the city of chicago recent john's case it would say we're go to start construction in said year and we hope to continue in or to be completed by twenty eight hundred twenty nine thousand whatever that might be able we're driving these motions we ask those questions what's the timeframe the time frame is the year two thousand and seventy so we put in the adopted schedule for two thousand and seventeen this particular partial it's important no this is a permanent easement that we're taking here we're not taking fee simple we weren't building a roadway on the phone it's a property we dealing with in this particular part of this partial sits adjacent to brighton bunker hill road and it's necessary to move brighton bunker hill road a little bit to the east as was testified to and  in the quick take hearing and that moves the right of way a little bit of the easement area a little bit to the east as well and so that's all we're doing them the roadways contained within the existing road right of way that was there before but now our easement area has to stand a little bit to the east as well and so i think you stated it was point six nine acres and it was just a very small sliver of a driveway that is now going to be part of the easement because the roadway i think you're right it was very very small it was six ten seven tenths of the nacre that's correct so and in our motion also states that it's necessary for this permanent easement for the construction and improvement of brighton bunker hill road and then we go on to talk about the inability to negotiate an agreement which has been conceded so if you look at the landmark case in this matter which i agree with opposing counsel city of chicago recent john is very factually similar and can be useful here in that case the city of chicago said that it's necessary for among other things to build a new runway and and that case they did have a two year period where so it would begin in july of two thousand and ten with the completion in two thousand and twelve so that obviously spanned more than one year which was just factually distinct in that case so in that case the city provided a specific timeline here's the beginning point here's the end point and a specific project they said to build a new runway and our case here we have said calendar year two thousand and seventeen that's from january one to december thirty one that's our calendar year we intend to have this done by the end of point seventeen and the purpose is to prepare the site for the project's main construction and it's necessary for the construction and improvement of brighton bunker hill road so the main project is right bunker hill road this permanent easement is necessary to prepare that site for the construction and finalize that construction so we relate to how this particular partial plays into the main construction as required by the statute and we give a defined period of time calendar year twenty seventeen now opposing counsel is correct there is a short period of time between the time that the statute allows for a motion for a quick take hearing it could take hearing to take place but that should go to tell you that the purpose of the quick take hearing it's not for the defendant to scrutinize the plans there's no way you could do that in that day period that the plans that are adopted by the owner or department transportation are not at all issue iniquity that's not what we're discussing we're not discussing about what they need point zero six nine acres are they need only point zero six their traverse those things could be heard in a different time but the purpose of the quick take hearing is simply to tell the court we haven't adopted plan a proposed plan in the schedule here it is here's how we acquired our compensation immediate us to title was as opposing counsel mention a legal description as well as the permanent easement platt that came from the project plans that were adopted by the only apartment transportation and those were attached to show the location of the proposed permanent roadway easement it's all right there's there's no confusion as to what portion of the property we're taking or what we're doing with it states it's a roadway easement i think all of these things comply with the holding in the city of chicago case that basically they said that the city ha provided a specific timeline for the project and they had determined that there had been sufficient compliance with the section and the dusting of title by quick take was proper they go on to say plans for a massive project such as the o'hare you know are the the purposes of a hearing or to ford but evidence at those hearings are only submitted for the purposes of showing that we have the minimum standards needed in the statute for a quick take and we also have to put on just compensation evidence of that the court can say here's the preliminary compensation for the vesting of title that i'm going to work that is correct two things happened in that case but really the only evidence that and then later on there's eventually a final determination of compensation and between those two periods of time the defendants in eminent domain case are allowed to bring in appraisers other engineers who might c test the political the play ends that the state of illinois has come up with for that partial and they may say you're taking too much of my land more than you need they have the ability to contest that in the future and so then the court m you're right you try to take more ground it's necessary for public purpose so i'm not going to let you have everything that you have requested originally but my point was there that that's not the purpose of a quick take hearing to scrutinize the plane's opposing counsel mentions that we didn't have time to you know come up with an argument as to whether this was a proper taking or not and i'm saying that's not the purpose of the quick take hearing at t so just in in conclusion arar's i think the the state of illinois has satisfied the eminent domain statute in that they did provide the proper statutory requirements for the motion for immediate posting of title they did state that they formally adopted schedule or plan had been adopted by the plaintiff and it was contained in the motion calendar year twenty seventeen for improvements to brighton bunker hill road and we think that the attachments that were were hatched to the motion also supplement was sufficient to meet the statutory ok thank you to be clear i agree with my posing counsel that the purpose of that hearing on the motion for a quick take with a motion of besting of title suit the quick take act this set you is to address whether or not this condemning is a permanent easements it's not even going to be toward the actual rubber of project so you want when the person reads this motion which is the only thing they have going into that hearing i do not believe that it's clear what's going on as far as the project relative to exhibit p two which is the flat that looked to me the way i understood it was that plat was calling for an easement right away over my over the ba and i believe that they were taking up my client's property and but it's unclear you would no one would know by looking at his motion what the plans are for this project rolled to my client's property and to and also the only reference to the project is my client's property is necessary for the construction improvement of a seven three six that's it i've no idea what f a f a s seventy six more importantly my client doesn't