before me many times chance or division and i've made these disclosures and we have continued on and on and in healthy cases so i think the best course of action here is for me to have was insufficient we should be able to give additional notice within this case that's certainly our position but i don't believe it would be proper to five so so you're not contesting the coup the question whether it was with prejudice it with  argument is that if the notice is not sufficient that we be able to give notice to to those nine parties who did not give notice and i cite the hannah case for that that proposition in that case there was absolutely no notice we're here on this particular issue how do you get around three forty one you know that you're not allowed to raise an issue for the first time the reply brief they don't get a chance to appropriately was in the opening brief you did raise it with the trial court and i'm not saying that you know you should be more closed in any of that but i do think that you know the that the owner has not gone ahead and done any construction with respect to the the site but there there isn't there is no state so the owner could they would i think do it at their own risk of a reversal of and having to deal with those consequences but i can't london near our county engineer and the question was whether the notice sent to the county engineer was strictly compliant in both of those but both those cases deal with the concept of substantial compliance as well as the question positions that they did that there was no notice required under eleven thirteen dash eight so the issue of substantial compliance with was never addressed because the only issue because it was whether or not notice had to be given the court never reached the issue otherwise be entitled to notice not given notice in this case i don't think it's not sixteen but if it's what the percent it's not it's it's they've identified nine problems yes but what is that in terms of the overall number property owners or percentage wise it's it's less than ten percent because i know that we gave notice i don't know the exact figure but we gave notice to at least one hundred twenty five property owners are your numbers are likely different than the ones i know i don't yeah  do it talks about the property owner yet in a world what the property owner for what for the b the property question all right but so so that you're not saying that there's into three big numbers we did reach all of the all of the tax payers which with respect to the third pin number which was for this to the east we didn't miss the seven taxpayers and dorchester yes i there were some that were not not exempt that's correct ron all right that's correct but i do i believe the substantial compliance is appropriate and let me let me get to that we said why did the test is is whether or not the purpose of the statute can any cases that are now saying that we should look at whether or not we have a serial process was taking place if you cite a case although i don't have a case there's no there's no case that discusses what the serial process is what the purpose of the statute is ok i thought the statute i thought it was in another case that said the purpose of the statute is to give the owners notification so that they may intervene as a party have the rights of any other party in terms of whether or not they would be a favor or  to impair that the developments they have on their ownership rights yes her honor but i believe that there is an underlying purpose of the statute which is to ensure that there is a true think the argument could be made with respect to the park district and with respect to the board of education as well but i'm not i'm not dismissing them and i and i understand that we missed that we missed probably our exam and if strict compliance is the standard then standard it they also could rely numerous other ways that a plea was notified in the case of it and it was an issue that was in the newspapers it was something that everybody was aware of and there were those that it appear i mean most important person being the owner of the property i can't think of anybody who would advocate more strongly for the position that the ordinance is valid rather than the owner of the property  i just want to make one point that goes back to the earlier point i made about the ability to provide supplemental notice in that case you had a hearing with a particular deadline and there was the hearing was going to take if supplemental notice was allowed it be no prejudice to anybody because if we provided supplemental notice to those nine parties and there was an ongoing case they could intervene in that case there's nothing that would be no words this is something this this case ongoing is no reason to to to cut off you know well and certainly under your approach to having a pulse correct correct but i think that's a reason why supplemental notices is appropriate because unlike a hearing where it it takes place or it takes place and then there's there's nothing more to do there are there are additional opportunities for people to intervene and i do have to say as empirical matter and i understand this doesn't address your concerns if interpretation of substantial compliance and you're also arguing that you substantially lack that's correct i just want to say as a resident curricle matter of everybody who was sent notice only one party which is the owner of your feed now i understand that doesn't tell you with any scientific certainty what those individuals and dorchester would have done i understand that but it does give you a pretty good indication of what the the average property owner is reaction to notice of  which is if they support plaintiffs will let play just carry the ball and have a point just to suit a lawsuit if they support the organ simply the truth being that invalidated well you've got both the city and the owner of the property who are firstly defending the ordinance so both sides are are fully represented in terms of there being advocates or any against the ordinance are your good faith arguments  this dispute there i don't want to i don't think that's my argument at this on time but my argument is that substantial compliance should should be allowed and i and i have to go back to many you believe that the purpose of the notice was this language that every statute is is different so obviously those were different types of of of statutes i mean you have to take a look at the at the purpose of the statute itself determine whether substantial compliance would be acceptable  and i do have to close by going back to the the the how case your honor because in that case if refile the notice was an absolute necessity the court never would have given the point if the opportunity to provide notice multiple ways to make certain that holders were all notified the the trial court said that with respect to the exams owners that we should have done more than what we did that we shouldn't have looked at more other evidence of the record and the fact that we that we missed the seven x the or it's the only evidence in the record and going back to your your your last question your honor this is the same argument would have applied in the  hanna was required to provide free filing notice yes he didn't provide the filing notice but the court allowed him to go back and provide first filing notice to everybody in tile to notice so that that same question you have for me i could have been applied in that case it clearly the court felt that allowing post filing notice was proper as it doesn't have anything to do with the statue of limitations has to happen with whether or not the notice was free filing or or post  more interest in seeing this play development of health and the owner of the property and if you take a look from again from an imperial perspective nobody else besides the owner of the property shows intervene in this case so i would submit that that we have the key parties at issue what resulted in this case and if we missed the the people on dorchester you know that i would submit that we we should be allowed to provide supplemental please of course your honour's add my name is tom guess a proc to represent like park associates the owner of the subject property in this case let me turn to rectally justice in a ride to the second argument of the plaintiffs and that is that they should be given a do over an opportunity for a make up some kind of a supplemental notice of several responses first you beat me to the punch rule three forty one this argument is waiver not having been brought up as a principle camping out it's a rigged lottery and this is a perfect case to illustrate it because i'm going to end up giving you some additional responses that you haven't heard before because it only came up in the reply brief second it's also way because there was a failure to move to one men and the complaint before the circuit court therefore this court because there was not a motion to a man to convert the dismissal into a dismissal without prejudice and now to file an amended complaint there is no opportunity for you to review judge  discretion in not allowing an amendment and that's precisely what happened in the lasalle national bank or city suites case in which this court also held there was a waiver on a similar argument for refusing to braise to file a motion if i would refer you to the city suites case your honor on page seven ninety one i in which the court discusses that in there the need to have a written motion and eight a motion to amend any proposed amended complaint  the record your honor the transcripts are proceedings i would characterize it as an off handed statement in oral argument there was no formal motion in that regard whatsoever second let's talk about the possibility of a do over notice on the problem is that the statute is counsel agrees requires that notice you be given before your suit is filed so for this court to say that there's a possibility of that that directly contradicts the wording of the statute which gets us to the han case your honor and i would respectfully disagree with counsel although i will defer to your judgment in this regard i don't think the hannah case ruled on that point all that hannah said was quote bust on remained in the event hannah wishes to pursue declaratory relief he should be afforded the opportunity to give appropriate notice to a property owners within two hundred fifty feet the court didn't rule that a post filing notice would be proper and here's why that's important he when they couldn't file an amended complaint i'll tell you why second but they could take a voluntary non suit filed a new notice and then file a new complaint still be within the statutory notice my surmise is that that was the appropriate opportunity that the court was discussing in hand i'm here that is not possible because of the new ninety day statute of limitations and in this case an amended complaint could not relate back to the date of the original filing it would be barred by the ninety day statute of limitations under section six sixteen b of the code of civil procedure i you can only relate back if you had at the time of the jewel case a case after hanna and after the ninety day statue a case which specifically mentioned the handing case there was no possibility or opportunity for a do a do over so i think with all due respect to counsel i respect to the people who were the focus of the statute and here i disagree with counsel and let's move into the substantial compliance or their argument as i understand it basically is that the right people got noticed a key part of this is i think he said they're really really really really really interested and i would agree that the property owner is really really interested i would also believe that the city of chicago is really interested but that's for ne household or with all due respect your honor your honour's to decide that's for the legislature to decide what is the proper parameters and focus of the statute the legislature could have written the statute to say before filing this notice the property it could have said give notice to well immediate neighbors not the legislature chose a specific area two hundred fifty feet within the location of the property and with all due respect  absolutely and i'm going to get let me get back to that with all respect i don't think you shouldn't graft a judicial amendment under the statute to to allow substantial compliance for the reason for one of the reasons that you suggested and in preparing for argument i actually thought of that and i think i said well i don't know maybe i shouldn't be so cynical as to impart motivations to potential zoning challengers but that would be one way that someone could try to game the system and to decide for themselves who to give notice to sachi it says no the bright line rule just isn't right us to question and i want to answer and that is to perceiving and that's what happens in virtually all there's only cases is that the longer that the cases go wide the bigger the problem there's there's millions of dollars at stake and one of the reasons i believe that the legislature if you put this statute together with the ninety day statute i think you see a legislative policy there of making sure that any and all challenges to approved developments be fleshed out be fleshed out and be in the courts as quickly as possible and so that would be again inconsistent with any notion that well ninety days one hundred twenty days in this case a year after the fact we can go back into some kind of the winter notice when  owners as disclose and under the city staff but city ordinance you go by the authentic tax records the statute adds another element which was never verified here the statute as the element of the record this i'm not sure that it would be that alone but here's how i interpret your honor we've got several different questions here we've got to do or we're nervous which i think i've addressed we've got the notion of whether substantial compliance all should be allowed and then we got the very wrong location they gave up a common street address and it was just judge pam please opinion makes clear that's just wrong under the statute they they made their nose itself as we pointed out in our brief is inadequate because it only notified you only gave the run of the three pins in the area being redeveloped and did not provide a meets and bounds address you got to have the meets and bounds or you have to have all the pins you can for stricter substantial compliance is required you look at the statutory purpose and you look at the presidents you asked a question about the statutory purpose i would simply quote the plaintiffs call the pro business to give neighboring property owners the pointed out your honor the prejudice here is not to lake park it's not to the city of chicago it's to those people within the statutory framework of statutory parameters who are supposed to be given the opportunity to make the choice themselves as to whether to intervene or not so why not let them go back and tempted by other people on board because the statute by both the reasons i said probably most importantly in addition to waiver because the statute  says that mandate sometimes really doesn't mean mandate it means maybe but yeah that's pretty strong language but i will concede that night or city suites nor the final case had this particular issue down there and let me let me address really enders did not lay out that deal in fehrenbach or two part test or to terminate whether substantial a strict compliance is at issue because the question of statutory compliance was not an issue it was a due process  decided whether the notice given comported with new process not with the statute and as you pointed out your honor it was a tax case for which publication notice alone can be sufficient and publication notice was provided there this case is not in ram no publication notice was given now there was a suggestion from counsel that all just like in enders there was lots of newspaper coverage and all that in this case and so enough notice was given here totally outside the board of education in two by the park district and maybe the other way around sixteen pins there is nothing in the record to indicate who the owner was so i don't want there is any suggestion that other seven owners across star chester and they're just a couple of public property owners would have notified the state property owners but no evidence of the city you know that there's no evidence the city rose an exam one of the exam property owners it was the board of education in the park district respectfully different entities  but i would say your honor that regardless of what the percentage is trying to say that enough property owners were notified is a slippery slope  compliance it certainly doesn't qualify under the bona fide attempt provision of the century we believe that strict compliance is required that even if substantial compliance could be required that it or it could be allowed there is no substantial compliance here we believe that there should be no do over so we ask that your honour's from the judgment of the circuit court you have no other questions i'll see the rest of my the complaint fails to state if you process claim and that's for two reasons first it is not allege a protected property interest and second there are many are rational bases that support the city's decision to enact this plan development ordinance but i'd like to begin with property interests the first step in any due process analysis is to short determine whether a protected interest is its stake in plaintiff's here have alleged no such interest they have no interest in the property it's being the before the court even gets to that step your honor the plaintiffs who are making a due process clane have to demonstrate that they have a protected they have an interest that is entitled to due process protection in the first place that's the to mostly use there's a lot of considerations that go into that everything from parking to traffic to property values all these the cash range to their reply brief for of the trial court a page that indicated to the owners of the exempt properties that they had identified in as not being served and based upon their own records it indicates that the only the owners of the temple properties were only the chicago park district and chicago board of education so that's in terms of what we're talking about we're talking about nine  that's that's what we're talking about nine owners who were not noticed that's that's based upon information that's in the record that in fact the owner submitted in the record which respect to the hat case again i  the case but i don't interpret it the same way as the intervenors it seems clear to me what the court was saying was that within this case not another case but within this case mr han or should be given the opportunity  to to say notice two problems it was it was clear that there was not only an indication but it direction to mr hanna which is if you're if you're going or with a declaratory judgment action then go ahead and provide the property had to do pre filing it didn't do it pre filing your out of court that's that's it yes and and so there was no there was no reason to file a motion to due process rights thank you for less that is that a neighboring property owner is due process rights to the sunlight to air and parking spaces needs to be another property owners we didn't munition in the property value that one if you aren't building that we represent a single family property owners in the neighborhood and that this is a single family will rise neighborhood and that the building of a high rise lock into this