that route is a public road that happens to go through a public park the road goes to the public beach and it is the means by which the public accesses the public the city this is a critical that is considered to be a real reserve it's actually called a marine survive state and what's interesting about that is they do have regulations to say you shall not take this shall not take all those regulations say nothing about residence may forum if it's not a content based regulation but we do submit that where the restriction on the park is not ok you can't go in the fark after five o'clock that it's these people can't go in the park unless they say that is an identity this daily for example her daughter lives here and is in a group that is opposed to the development of the bay they went out there as a family to witness and you there and to discuss that and the activities of her daughter in  public space by state law is public space the state law are the questions we have to reach those questions first to know how that what the city is actually doing to these people equal protection  many situations where there can be rational bases for discriminating between residents and nonresidents they all arise in a situation where the resident has paid for something and the nonresident has not paid for it and therefore charge the nonresident because the resident has paid for it through his taxes and the site numerous faces to that effect in other words you are in the end treating them equally but not through the fee that they're being charged the same thing the problem here is nobody pays anything from the wife for that part and even more importantly where they really fell down the first time this issue came up we argued rational basis we said how can it be rational to make it for state didn't have one of the judge gave them another chance to come up with a rational basis so they dreamed one up after the fact was very interesting about the state statute that restricts calories from stopping or blocking each access is that it you must state your purpose in the statute in the ordinance and the city never did it never gave a reason why they're doing this they came up with one when the district judge gave them the second schatz district judge says ok try again and they said well we're exempting all the people in the because state the state test payers pay for the ocean next door now that is not have rational relationship the city's powers are limited and enumerated it can raise state law it's not a true user fee a user fee has to be for the service that is a benefit to you if someone charges you for something that's given away free to everyone else they're not giving you a benefit if they charge you to go to a beach that belongs to somebody political and economic considerations that would offset so you want to do that but because family is one of the most visited attractions in the state and because it's a nature preserve and people go there to see all balancing test and i think maybe to presuppose your question the best piece that i can rely on i think is the law in versus redwood city case which which talks about incidental burdens and that because if we go through the test on the doris case it directly benefits to the use the person if he's the feet the money comes back to to do for this particular purpose is not going back those are not services because they're not particularize to the user they're available to the general public that you can't do that exactly the point that judge noonan made is that you can't start charging for these services because that becomes the tax the city only has the power charge you user fees for using its facilities it can't charge us to go to a state because it doesn't have that power and it doesn't have the power to lay the charge for going to the state park which is not the state on one section of society