plans to reconstruct me bridge that is approximately fifty six years old on cedar road in will county and to make it deep for a lane bridge this piece of property taken from their their land and that what they came up with was well you don't need it does look at what the plain document chill for will come on with the with the high we document what it can tell right then when it makes the point not a week after it makes it twenty four plan or two years after at least twenty forty plan it's looking at the time that it or sense that twenty four play what the current needs become something that is necessary we we i think the object is to build the bridge and that piece of property will be will be have work donna and so it will be actually part of that evidence that anything the count is doing here on this with this project was clearly using what they're doing is they're trying to avoid constructing this bridge twice as i mentioned at the outset this is an old bridge that has to be replace that was brought up at the hearing the i believe the trial work made a statement that well if you only need two lanes now please fill the two lane bridge and you know what if you need four five lanes later then you build a the taking in this case brings the residents to within twenty feet of the right way informally was i think about fifty feet in addition to that when this reform is said location and size it makes it clear that it's he in it stands fifty two point five three feet from the existing right away into the peterson property and that fifty two point five three extends significant it was admitted in the testimony of their engineers in the case that that in fact there is going to be some sick there's going to be some significant impact on the landscaping and there is going to it she's a little older than i am ok i hear but she said i think she's in or she's in her seventy's i think she's seventy four seventy five here to say there's no plans to raise in her light there your honor that's manager and who's also the assistant engineer and what he testified to your honor was there's not only no plans for the whiting there's no budget it's never been stud the entire area from highway six to the south all the way up to bruce to the north which is about four and a half miles it everything on that side of the highway is farm except for one farmhouse highway six and then there's a few scattered residences there's the tear the theory to rolling i think it is nursery and then you get to the peterson property and this and the saas property and then there's nothing else so honor i don't think they ever did and i think the evidence is so clear whether they did or they didn't the evidence is so clear because every one of their witnesses including mr foreman the attorney admitted we have no need for a five lane bridge or or for anything other than replacing the bridge right now all we're doing is we're doing something down here in hopes that in the future we may with them going in there and replacing that bridge i mean it's a safety issue mrs peterson would like to see them do that the problem is there's just absolutely no evidence i mean one percent of the evidence in this case is we have no need for what i mean mr beazley to acknowledge there's absolutely no need for a five lane bridge or for those shoulders or for those the land needed the shoulders a white in cedar grove mr bloom authentic and that was that that was a witness that was evidence that was put in by the county the twenty forty plan your honor which is the county's long range transportation study is the official act of the county it specifically says that this transportation plan is based on what we can reasonably anticipate to have that have the money our investment priorities for county roadways which are physically constraining which means they are based on reasonably anticipated revenues and expenditures through twenty four so number two it says future needs cannot serve as a basis for necessity of the less those future needs in the reasonably anticipated in the future every one we don't have any plans now but when those plant when and if those plans come into being then we're going to then we're going to try to budget them i mean every witness for the county testified we don't have any budget it we don't have a resolution we don't have the study we can't say when and if there's going to be a need so then after the testimony oh mr decent beat mr gould through the stipulated testimony the interaction of planet going through the plan which mr gould the knowledge was their strategic plan for what's going to happen within the next twenty five years and the plan itself acknowledges that all the  we really don't have any meat that property yet they're hoping to have it and then mr gould said the only place that see your road widening appears in the plan had with and without delay on and on both of those lists were the ones that they anticipated would be needed up through the year up through to your twenty or to then they had an alternative list in case they got some more every county official testified or made statements in this case that we don't need it now all we're doing is we need to replace the bridge we've got some money to replace the bridges so require the land for five late needed for five points and shoulders even though we don't have any proof or any evidence that we need it right now the cases all require that you need it ok so basic there's only one at the bottom of it who knows what the now there are for resolve which typically at least in my experience has been you if you're going to incorporate the previous whereas as you say where as as previously s will county order hereby passes and approves for the will county state's attorney's office to commence with any and all required procedures to condemn the real estate described in the attached list for the purpose of constructing or maintaining a public road which is of public use that's it there is no language in the math final resolution say these reciprocally find that it is necessary to widen the bridge at that location or to widen c to road or to do anything in fact they couldn't say that because they know the evidence is totally to the contrary they need to whiten the bridge they don't meet me i'm starving me to leave here the bridge and to put in whatever's needed for the two lane road and his judge ross the intern it is the evidence that eve heard in the case and that was that was true a question that he asked one of the witnesses he asked one of their engineers well what happens let's say if you put in a two lane bridge and ten years down the line you move something happens and you come up with some money and you need to widen the cedar road can you when you do something with that road and there engineer went through him he made very specific findings in this case there is no need to widen the road the taking is an excessive amount of land it's a substantially excessive amount when there's the testimony it was all but there's evidence in this case that there could that there could be any any on air made by the judge i mean the testimony was all that way another one of the point they filed in their reply brief they listed listed and i've got a list of i've got a new one here we're going to go through every one of every one of those in there in the courts the court is up saying they put the resolution in the resolution said it was necessary to do what we're going to defer to their judgment in the absence of any proof in the contrary and then they say the property owner offered no evidence if you go through those every one of those cases that's what happened so all we've got the opposite situation here they put they put a resolution in that doesn't really say doesn't really find any necessity the do what they're trying to do here and it's one hundred percent contrary to what the evidence is and encounter what witnesses are on i put witnesses on every witness and the county's own plans say you don't need to light this road and you don't need this land beyond only just repairing bridges we hope the repairing the bridge but not to the extent that they're going to destroy her lifestyle for the remaining time that she wishes to live the happenings you know question ok thank you traffic ability to go in and out and we need more lanes you can rest assured that money will be sought by will county to do that to make sure that the road is is put there so that you i think that's it it's not really there or the it's not something that should be imposed upon me frankly that i think that they have that legislature is right for me but they're there citizens are requiring and when they come up with a resolution suggesting what their citizens require that it's not the province of the trial court to go in and say that's wrong i think i unless it's something director of transportation at the time he felt that this was necessary to do it this way so there was an extra cost on the back end when it actually becomes it in frankly from personal experience i don't think that that's a problem is in this case i don't think it's a problem because we have the right to take is as you say that constitutional right we have a right to take this for operate for the reasons for good reasons and believe you've stated what those good