administrators decision is in the record yes but if it's a pacific letter and it and it specifically says because the sign would be located with then five hundred feet of the expressway in violation of that  through some form of claim or litigation what have you i'm not aware of any conventional form designation are ramp stormily considered part of the risk as far as i know the only case in which there's been a consideration of what the rams are is this case well in this case there really wasn't anything presented at that at that initial thought i mean i would call it here with you in front of can clean well there's nothing in this record is there other than her letter knowing there wouldn't be a requirement that there be she there was no hearing before a zoning out ministry as well in this case the there is an indication that the illinois department transportation said this isn't heard at the expressway correct that e mail the go annoyed department of transportation which has nothing to do with this hortons which specifically with this the ordinance and well the city of chicago to hang on the word expressed right as far as what of what else does it you know form well there's nothing in the record to indicate why not what the word expressed why the word expressway well know it's whatever the chicago department of transportation designates it to be for whatever purposes the chicago transit service doesn't have any existence aside from what it is designated at by some formal formality of a body politic that might have some connection with it is that i'm not aware of any but certainly nothing inhibits or restricts limits in any way see  the legal construct the sorts that that's right other otherwise it would that would be some other reference instead of just what the chicago department of transportation this thing needed to be of course you know we would acknowledge that it has to be a reasonable designation but here the feeder ramps certainly could reasonably designated as s s expressway there were some reference in the in the record to last statement of one of the chicago department transportation employees that they deferred to the ohio department of transportation at least that individual person to chooses to defer to you on my department of transportation in designating expressway well there was testimony presented by the plaintiffs by the owners of the building and that i got does but i think your position would be that if indeed such a person made such a statement that couldn't find the city certainly not that's correct what about the testimony in the record about asserted that one of those sons is owned by the company that andrew white works for there's no evidence in the record that we're just channel right that's right there's no evidence in the record that that his hearing without anybody calling him we don't i don't know whether the record does not stay or show pep any evidence in there there's no evidence in the record that clear channel outdoor has one of those songs but whether it did or not designation of that particular roadway s s as expressway well it certainly wouldn't be inconsistent with it's obvious that wouldn't be inconsistent so  record before us that for any of those other five signs that a permit was even ever applied for that's correct as well there if there is nothing in the record to indicate whether they were we don't know whether the city's ever granted up from for those signs in contravention of their decision in this particular case that's for as i take it from your argument that your position would be if it were mere it would be near negligence on the part that those signs and basically remain in place and they can be continued to generate income for whatever building so long as they remain the exact same size i mean i'm sure you're the entire ordinance so these signs could have been there before as opposed to your suggestion that they look at lease slip through the cracks it's very possible they were there that's correct  interpretation or was that correct that was inaccurate because andrew white did testify at the hearing and he specifically said that he had conversations with si dot personnel prior to the application in this case even being filed with the zoning department and that he was told in those in that conversation that that the ranch had been designated an expressway and  of the assertion that he talked to see that but he doesn't designate any individual that he talked to so how does that i mean forgetting about the fact that it's  and there was never an objection made even so if the judge just the crowd judge wanted to discount that testimony don't you think that it was within the area at least the trial judge of discretion  do so based ownby alone quality of that testimony even if it would have otherwise been admissible its weight could be discounted if at least u that could otherwise i have no value or de minimis tell you why i certainly wouldn't think that it would have to minimise value merely because the person's name that the person was with whom white spoke were not named i had in fact if that were the case there were other factors involved here too aside from the fact that the white could well have been a biased witness since he was a competitor of the the the building corporation itself ah and and that would have been reef reflected in the fact that she didn't even think in h say well the ass as being someone providing any but again the c p a whose decision it is whether or not a witness is biased never said anything to suggest that it brought that he was biased and more the point to pet the burden of proof in this case at that at the zepa here and the plaintiffs with not necessarily the burden of going forward as you yourself necessarily the burden of going forward but writes testimony certainly enough to present enough evidence to go forward and the plaintiffs never gave the names of any of the people at that meeting only point of order gave the names of the people supposedly what other evidence is there that if the chicago department of transportation ever designated this ramp area for us there's no evidence either way there's no evidence evidence either what they i thought they presented the email from the illinois department of transportation who indicated that we do not consider this to be any part of the expressway system of illinois but that's the  department yes transportation they have no authority under the ordinance to designate or not designate what the the noise department of the of but i'm just what i'm asking you is then should there be something that would that someone declared this an expressway besides a person named white who didn't get a permit well the issue didn't come up until the hearing when the when the memorandum was present plaintiffs with the burden of persuasion did not ask for a continuance what if what if we consider that the city council alderman all those steps matters going forward and basically everyone along the way i mean it wasn't just just one little stock to get that to the point before the stunning administrator correct aldermen allowed them to proceed they had to get titian signed with the neighborhood then they went to the city council then the city council had to pass ordinance to get permits and then is the next step in front of the zoning board and then we have this these differing pieces of evidence but i don't know what she decided anything on because her her statement denying it doesn't really she just says it's the express which only asked the question this way because like weeks we seem to be going round and round and a lot of these questions i want to ask you this isn't it the purview of the zoning board of ministration to in the first instance make a factual determination about whether or not this is an expressway well i would say it slightly differently your honor i think that's correct it's up to the zoning administrator to really presents itself in that context is whether that decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence under the record in this case well actually it seems to me that we're not really the man's best way standard negative proof consist of would it be enough to show that the c p o that the that the seat that never made the designation a formal way how else would you prove the ne isn't this hearing sufficient to either present that proof or to negate that proof in so far as the submissions that w by see dr during the course of this series would be the sum total of evidence to be presented on that issue and if the trial judge would then say the evidence is insufficient to show with a seat that can't produce anything other than an october fourteenth memorandum if the trial judge with that would say that the other submissions whatever they were were insufficient to show no such thing and the only way sufficient that designation would have been through the memorandum but because it was issued after the fact it should now that bar the applicant who preceded in his application the issuance of preparation of that memorandum why wouldn't the city to present contrary evidence in point the fact the only reason why i could see that the proof of a negative doesn't shift the burden of persuasion is the a designation was an issue at all once that the memorandum was presented at the hearing plaintiff's counsel said that there's a problem here because we don't know when this designation i mean are you indicating establish that designation but for the lack of notice to be city that it would have to satisfy that well certainly the record doesn't indicate whether there is any such evidence except that white said that he had been planned that it was which would support it but otherwise there might have been a holding back no i don't think so at all then why wouldn't the judge then have the latitude of assuming that what was but the plaintiff didn't do that but did the plane present since that approximately five different people from the city of chicago and informs your kind are the two representatives owners or even  to allow for this particular site to pass an ordinance for i'm sorry did they get that far where the city council actually voted to pass and passed an ordinance to permit the site yet there actually there's i don't think there's anything in the record indicating the form in which the city actually acted when they have to they have to actually pass a guard and to get permission for the sign and that was done rely on anything to particular other than maybe i mean it was conceded that this sign was within five hundred feet of the actual ohio ranch but whether the ohio ramp was designated by the active transportation as an expressway clearly was not something that she put into her original order well that's correct and end the administrative process that's not a vision hearing at which all the evidence is presented and then yeah yeah and in this case the evidence there had been known to nothing in advance suggesting that the timing would matter the evidence of the memorandum was presented and then play defend an opportunity to put the brakes on that hearing in order to bring in evidence that would have indicated when that designation was made but if we also argument where he said your honor correctly pointed out you're you're you're are working correctly pointed gratuitously it costs a lot of money as you know for developers to prepare a make up recent terror that would pass through the alderman and pass through the the city council the retention of an architect and then for the city to come in afterwards and say well we don't need anything or what we're going to have now there's got to be something that if it stimulates  revealing court to look wrong and are to see if that's osha well in connection with that i would point out though that you know that the notion of gross fairness is is ordinarily the subject of due process concern a constitutional concern and the plaintiffs do not contend that that there was any due process violation here that that loomed in this case at all  if i may with my few remaining minutes you know we also asked this court to reverse the portion of the circuit court judge decision ordering the song it minister to issue the purpose of the decision on review in circuit  court holds that there is no of basis legal grounds to withhold the permit the next step is to mandamus the employee who writes these on it's good and a whole slew of supreme court cases that will authorize mandamus without invoking sovereign immunity once is to minister ariel job at that level right we're simply pointing out that that as a fellow matter the circuit court was reviewing the decision of the zepa and should have issued for it to suit her directions to the z b whatever those directions might be with and not bypass the c v a and ordered the mooted and your opponent refuses to take that issue seriously because he's counting on the fact that if you get if he gets the administrator if he gets the  that he's seeking and there's no in the case i hope for me which way that's going to go up ok he's counting on the fact that the employees who are responsible for writing these permits will do their they certainly would lack naturality and they could be over time myself to put it on the part of the board and i look for a case support and i found out i'm sort of very curious well if i understood your and i understand yours your honor correctly again but just to help me think about this the the designation that the administrative review was did not by the mandate of this court one would think that right but because of the complexity of the way the issues the perp were presented it's unclear exactly what the basis of the ruling would be here and in the event yes but that was in our view again without alter fires the court did not have authority to do what you meant to say is that they can't do that and because worst guilt open to remain for this isn't strictly about zoning all of it fundamentally about property rights the owners purchased this property and built this building and saw up what they signed and the property that right there the the later right particularly supposing that those ignatius would have been the memorandum saying and we've always considered it so to have been an expressway so that it's not a new designation but but how is that conclusive as to who did the fake consideration was made one way or the other how can how can you argue with the absence of a reference back to the date of  at that point in the record demonstrates prior to june eighteenth judy tenth two thousand still if you did you make an effort to take discovery when you say we couldn't the found out in  there's all occur prior to the written determination on june eighteenth two thousand and nine denying the permit that was the final step the i backed up e mail place i believe m two thousand all of this investigation was going on i'm the half of the overs with her seat off and the only public transportation when we were referred there during this period when that the rams and the all of the expressways well i don't know all the rest but believe it's in the record justice that there is some requirement that the city maintain the ohio futurama or some portion thereof because it's obviously things that you can't really escape from until you're off the ramp through that strip so i take aren't they generally part of the expressway just by their nature whether or not they're part of it i doubt which actually owns  statements made by these other individuals somehow by the city how does it matter if i got booked saturday as not part of the expressway because your trip interpretating a city ordinance  really in the past no reference to accepting the determination of the illinois department of transportation but tacitly retains the right to s it's written and for to there's not a visual record also out was completely dismissed by the commissioners and was a record that they recognized that they were this was a gentleman who had sought to lease the billboard from most of the west and was turned out he wasn't dismissed by the commissioners the commissioner simply didn't list them as a witness because he was a complaining party off the who occupy a different status is there anything that would have prevented the your client's counsel from seeking testimony if from the author of the memorandum trying to or others within the chicago department of transportation to try to ascertain the effective date of this consideration and whether it was something that came with the eleventh hour or something that if they had been in existence in the understanding of of the department for a period of time prior to that no except that we felt that that over fourteen thousand that memorandum proved our case yet because it because you extrapolated from the from the document that this would have had to have been the initial consideration and if they've never previously considered but as we i think discussed before that su not based on anything other than conjecture where at least there is a possibility of having inquired at that hearing whether your supposition was correct or incorrect and that was an opportunity that apparently was not seized well i think it was not seized at the hearing from that standpoint but where it was and where there was an ongoing discovery a few well was between was in april and may in early june of two thousand and nine where there were these meetings of the c i and there were e mails that i got and that information was then presented to this only get to demonstrate that your decision was a faulty one because there has been no designation and that's at that point where it was rejected as i mean mr the evidence the evidence of the nine designation if you will whatever we were able to come up with that was presented know we don't remember when we don't know how there was not let me be clear one thing as i read this record in these briefs i completely understand and i'll just understate the emotion of frustration of trying to do things the right way and finding out at some point that what you would been led to believe by certain people that you spoke to all the way down the line was contrary to the department's position or the city's position at a fall later date when decisions with economic consequences had already been made and by my questions i don't mean to suggest that that is not important and i don't mean to suggest that the human reaction and the motion of intense frustration is not warrant it that's really not the legal issues before us which is freeways if she stressed which i'm told so our position is if see that does this after the fact after were turned back and it's done after the fact that would be no different than it we're turned out and then the city of property rights issues here i mean if the city if the city was to prevent us from doing what we have a right to do not put temple if the city allowed construction of buildings in a certain manner and they determined that some point because of either new evidence that came up in the scientific community or some act of god that the way they have allowed buildings to be constructed in the past with no longer safe wouldn't they be entitled under those circumstances to change their designation and require retrofitting or remedial action and while it's not talking about a city situation of safety in these circumstances even if you're right if this designation came later done in with the reasons why the changes are made by the legislative body in other words is it not mandatory is it is it an option that the legislative a just don't know and ordinarily these answers are not named actually they're generally a product of some research or study or inquiry before their ri had granted these around the same time that they weren't grandfathered it and then perhaps i think you could show that this was an arbitrary decision i was only you know a reference to these other times and the record does indicate that they are clearly located along the same ohio feeder ramp but there's no other testimony supporting when they came into existence whether they were signs that could have been grandfather other permits issued for these other signs subsequent to the passage of this legislation and they were not grandfather did with reference to those signs it is in the record actually there now with regard to what you're saying but the fact that one of them is fair trial there is an aerial that was taken each side has a city that should permit number attached to it and the owners of the different sites are identified they're o precludes you from seeking a permanent again and perhaps demonstrating that these other signs were issued subsequent of legislation and are  letter that memorandum that they did it was complete within their purview to say we have as you mentioned justice we have always considered this we've always designated this expressway did not they did not they said we consider it an integral part of the expressway system and they will what they did what case do you support this notion with that there have to be something in writing prior to the hearing before the zoning board to  work were at a complete loss all her order says is that there was no that there was no written or there was no order before that date indicating that this was designated expressed and it is unfortunate because there  said she did it now neither of the parties had reported their presence so i'm not in any way suggesting that judge mason didn't have a good reason for doing what he did but the order that we have doesn't really give us the thought process a because that's what they cite and judge mason's order it's cited also that she finds that was since that was created after the fact after the denial the permit that's why she was reversing beyond that  find any designation up by sea dot of the expressway there's nothing at all in the record to support that that's a misrepresentation of the record the only other point that i would like to make is