mr. aelsner says if someone gets killed we will fix it. and in his brief he said, if we have a problem, with this stairway, and no one can be seen we will put in more lighting. the bottom line is that folks nobody in the city will be able to take care of this property once it is built and we have the same problem across the street and why build it so it is a danger and why even put the stairway in. and mr. auto has the opportunities for stairways on two sides of his house and did not object to another entrance on to this park let but we don't think that there is any statutory basis and the hearing decision does not, if you take a look at the hearing order and you take a look at the findings, 1, 2, 3, on page 2 of the documents and he does not address the problem. the problem is that this stairway is unique, in the sense that it gives him mr. auto private control over that portion of city property. the hearing officer specified no gates and no fences and prohibition. the bottom line is that you are giving the guide a stairway that is now ci

mr. aelsner's... >> yes. >> i see, but the last page, right? >> furthermore around article 15? >> no, ma'am, in his brief, 15 is mistaken. >> okay. i am in the wrong. >> because i have it, am i wrong? >> maybe. >> but that is the third page as i have it. >> are we missing a page? >> i see. >> yes. okay. >> i would like to read it. first paragraph begins in this brief. >> i got it.