recently the village and in response to an application by a new landowner condition the grammys special use permit for the property upon what i'm calling the of the existing billboard by july thirtieth or thirty first being the thirtieth day after the terminations of the existing lease and impose monetary sanctions if i'm a property owner if the  doing was illegal because of the fact that the board was a little naive conform hughson per protected by state statute and protected by the court and they could have negotiated and if the negotiations failed they could have considered litigation in the event as it turned out we had no notice even though as all get into it later the application of the  ok so you've got to read clarence to find out why clarence with the rationale behind clear which is a due process rationale that these people were not afforded due process they were not allowed to participate in a we've all heard this phrase or the saying that the end does not justify the means there is an n in there is a means the end of this process of the using the words of the work of the statu the remaining of the remainder of the sign on this property the petition was to allow the property owner to use the property for use that that he had been used for historically wants to rescind the agreement that it was course to be doing more executing does that not mean that everybody's supposed to be put in the original position they were previous to the course i was i meant which means that the specially used a variation all the benefits that they were granted under the ordinance ah are now ever gated and then you start all over again and then they get to go and file a declaratory judgment suit the billboard is required to be removed or altered and in this case is that we're assuming we have this agreement between the trust in ourselves that we get to remain there which is our agreement and entitle to just compensation the village has to pay for the village here in in two thousand and eight passed an ordinance banning all outdoor well my can't they do that they can but paid out on a piece of property that they were going to use in their business they like the property and there was nothing wrong with it it was perfect for their business the village comes along and he has this other provision in there that takes the income away from them from the same company what's the trust to do there put it in the in the in a jail they have to make a decision do we give up this good piece of property result in your standing to make a complaint about the damages that you might have received which corey to your argument seems to be that if you executed a lease with one of the trust of a hundred years that you should be given damages to the tune of whatever on a lease four hundred years or be worth if you execute a lease that was for ten years or five years or fifteen years and your damages would be whatever the value of that lease would be is that not is that logical or is it reasonable i mean what can you believe are you seeking based upon the fact that that the land owner was coerced into we are asking to remain there because our our goal is to have her ties and to sell space on our structure we want the removal provisions to be declared illegal invalid and therefore not no always at twenty two or twenty seven hundred dollars a month yes yes i think so for standing you have to declare all right in the land on earth to either alleviate the need for payment of the penalty based upon the it's the knowledge equal protection we're being singled out treated differently for no public purpose there there is the science and legal i might buy your argument if there were other people who went to  the city and said this we want to get to go she variation or some special benefits and in that situation there was a billboard on the property  establishing an equal treatment because i believe there is a doctor and i forgot the exact name but of you could have an instance of what after the possibilities are one no one can be change their mind about the deal that they made they would like to see this court give the relief to c b s outdoor is asking for the economy is changed so an extra few thousand dollars relief and move on with their business c b s outdoor not pleased with the decision now lies to assert the claims that the trust abandoned and they want to make this court deals with the village  correct that's our position my second observation and it's particularly important i didn't realize that it was going to come up in the argument and there is the issue of coercion there is no that the trust could have told the village we will not agree to the removal provision we want our zoning and we're going to move forward with the application and then the village is faced with a choice to either grant or deny the application and if they were to deny it the trust would seek legal relief and if they were granted then they got what they wanted and they got to keep the billboard but instead they made a deal with the village so yes there was an option for the trustee in this ma the real world terms he wishes to be say as you see he's inviting us to say look we're making technical legal arguments but there's a potential for abuse here in the real world you've got a village she would never and doesn't like the other signing doesn't like this billboard they well i don't believe ok let potential for abuse sure there's a potential ok i'm not going to deny that but i think that the word abuse in this particular circumstances is the wrong word because the village made it clear that they want the billboard to come down they need a clear since ninety three so that's not a secret the village has their own reasons and for if be a good or bad those are the reasons they asked the the the the trust if they would agree to have a lease expires the trust says yes they don't really find me abusive there are any facts here that suggest that the village is somehow using the property owner here it in the end if the if the trust says well we really want the signing and we think we're entitled to zoning relief even if we keep the sign the worst of it happens is the statute i do want to mention briefly that they argue they had no notice if you look at the planes correct carefully you'll see that they themselves allege that after the property was purchased and is only was obtained by the way it was on the same day so circuit an oral argument that i saw in there was a case it was directed at point that he was positive that it was dispositive of it and he stood up and told the justices of the seventh circuit my mom told me they said what i said i mean what i mean making this agreement with the trust was certainly aware of whom our decision and as opposed to requiring the trust to have the sign come down immediately realized the model was the guide the path as to how to resolve this matter and so all you had to do based on them are is cut a deal if they were going to do so they just let the lease expired or have the billboard come down and just in case they trust didn't want to build or to come down you'd have a penalty provision in there to make sure that they had an incentive to keep the agreement and that's what happened in this case lamar guided religion in this matter it's a precedent that we believe time in two thousand and seven when this ordinance which passed it was in force until june thirtieth of two thousand and eight we have standing because we are air personally affected by the the equivalent of having an interest that would subject you to notice each and every one of us at least the affected by things that happen around us every day but that doesn't give us a big interest if we have standing there just so they are violating our