subdivision, this parcel in 1962 there is a line on or through the middle of the parcel that is labeled bsl, building set back line. the parcel map that was submitted to our department essentially splits the parcel along that line. with some minor variations. i made the determination that that was a intended to be a no build zone. and conditioned our approval on that and had the statement going on the map that this built could not been on and we were going to allow the subdivision but you could not do anything with the property. you could not build on it. >> and then as i understood, what you said that you are not qualified to make such a decision? >> such a determination, therefore you have rescinded that? >> correct. >> and who do you believe is qualified? >> planning. >> and what is the basis for your authority in the first instance? you did make that initial determination? >> i am able in my position to make or put conditions on the map, where the dpw is essentially the lead agency. and in read visiting this and looking at the map being 50 years old and the possibility existing that the

and all of a sudden there is a question of whether the bsls were part of the original subdivision that is what is in the recorder's office. who do you think put the dotted lines there? >> second of all, they did not have it until we gave it to them. we sent it to storage and dpw and we sent it to planning. they never even have it. they don't look at anything. and then all of a sudden it does not go the way that the powerful in the planning process and this is what you get. this is really discouraging. >> do you want to state your name for the record? >> nancy oryan. >> and is there any other public comment? >> okay, commissioners the matter is yours. >> so just to understand this procedurely, you have a question, before you vote whether you want to continue this, what you would be continuing, is the rehearing request, okay? you already made the underlying decision to deny the permit for the reasons stated on the calendar and i am happy to read them to you if you like. and so the question is do you want to question the rehearing request or do you want to proceed with the deciding of the

it's not as cute as t.i.n.a., but bsl squared. >> sounds good. >> we have seen how companies have lots fashion? >> they'll get caught in a squeeze, and it will cost them extra money. and the firms won't be profitable. >> let's walk down the fantasy lane. if the fed can do it, why can't we? let's say the bulk of the economy does better, the pavl pavlovian effect, with the salivating, we've have conditioned companies to do, live in the short end where rates are cheap? isn't that possible? >> it is possible. >> what happens to the companies if there's a quick curve fluctuation from steep to flatter? >> if, in fact, the economy doesn't grow enough for the firms to be profitable, you have an issue. because they're not getting the revenues in. the economy is doing a little better. the km he has to do a lot better in order to keep the same equation, because you'll have the higher short-term rates, and it will cost them more money. >> if we ever came to the point where, let's say, the fed acknowledged that a bulk of the economy was really starting to fire on all cylinders, would these issues a