elsner's response of brief was filed last thursday. it took me four days to get my people together and testified last time we were here and i filed a request for a continuance on monday. and neither party has consented to this continuance. the problem is that we needed a chance to research what the consequence is and the statutory basis is. and that is what the board will have to find to be able to give mr. auto private use of public property. and i need a chance to be able to do the research and that is the basis for my request. >> you have directed our attention to page 4 of 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. >> so you have had no time no the last seven days? >> i was not even in town this w

elsner's response of brief was filed last thursday. it took me four days to get my people together and testified last time we were here and i filed a request for a continuance on monday. and neither party has consented to this continuance. the problem is that we needed a chance to research what the consequence is and the statutory basis is. and that is what the board will have to find to be able to give mr. auto private use of public property. and i need a chance to be able to do the research and that is

core bit and they said that we don't like that idea very much, it presents a public safety issue, elsner is great, tom and i went to see him and i have gone to see him. he has explained things carefully it me and he has been immensely patient with me and corresponded with me by e-mail over and over and over and over again. he is a city employee of whom we are all proud of really. but here he raises an issue that i didn't know about it and nor did any of the other neighbors know about. this was going to be not a public access property. this is a private piece of property and i think what i get from his brief, although i have not done the research is because it is private, mr. auto is going to be required to pay $3 a square foot to the city every year, and the bottom line folks is that the police department says that this is a danger, 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

in philosophy, the last century i have longed to be able to use the phrase (inaudible), what nick elsner is doing to the logical fallacy. and that stairway that exists now, is illegal. and to make it the basis for a legal stairway is logically i believe incorrect. for the dpw to rely on the building plan that says that there can be two doorways here and to authorize the use of a creation of one public stairway and public... there is a public exit at the bottom of the property, if you go out of the door down there, and near core bit street, you are right on to the beginning of the walkway, of the public stairway. and if you go out the other designed door, you have got a private stairway where people who are wandering up and down the street can hide where the people who are being pursued by the law enforcement will not be seen and putting more lighting there will not help the creation of a safety problem on our block. the bottom line is there is no basis for this stairway in the other one which was illegal and it is still illegal. and he is going to tear down the entire property. and it wi