up the idea and this had to do with the signs that are not new and the city attorney went to miriam webster and decided that a reasonable definition is one that is adding to the number of signs and this would be reasonable to consider this a replacement. i have never agreed with the way that the voluntary is treated. the right that someone has is a right to display an outdoor sign. i think that whoever owns the sign is irrelevant. who actually owns that sign and what the proffered to write off is an this hopefully protected by the fifth amendment which is the right to display the advertising sign. to start with built by planning and it was voluntary because the appellate has this action, all the appellant has done -- we are able to negotiate a contract that is more valuable than what cbs is paying me and therefore want to enter into this new resourced. they spent over $100,000 trying to defeat the idea that it was a voluntary action on the part of the appellant. they were voluntarily asking that the sign be removed but not deciding that they want to relinquish the right to display this outd