Robert, Carolyn, thank you very much for putting that together. I certainly agree that, you know, we want government to be accessible. And we want people when they're casting a vote to really understand, like you said, what it is that they're voting for? And as a lawyer, I can say that, you know, sometimes the legalese does not clarify it, it clouds the matter. So I, I agree with the red line that folks have proposed here. I suppose my thought is, given that the title itself doesn't actually change, you know, what's what's in the resolution to the full text and impact, you know, doesn't change based on the Title I, I actually wonder if if we couldn't simplify this further, which is just to basically have the language shall the town of Timnath Home Rule charter be amended to add a new section 15.7 prohibiting permanent fences, over 65 feet in height, measured vertically from the base of the fence to the top of the fence, including fences comprised of screening materials, and just stop it there. And I guess I'm wondering if you have any thoughts? You know, is there any negative impact to simplifying that much, I understand that the vested property rights stuff is important. You know, that, that's all still in there, we'll publish it. But for me, I guess that stuff kind of gets into the weeds and confused as the matter when, when really this is about, you know, prohibiting tall fences and netting or not. But I'm just curious, if you have thoughts on that,