integrated plan so that the land is used efficiently so that all the uses are appropriately laid out and separate from each other when that's appropriate and that you don't have to have holes in the plan where there's private ownership or other things that happen and you don't have to worry over time because you just started building in one corner and by the time it was done it was just a giant pattern that's of uncontrolled development. The idea has always been that you should plan whole cities in a comprehensive way. To me, IWRM has some of the same resonance. Okay? Now, we know in real life, there are very, very few planned cities where the whole city was laid out and all of its evolution was guided by or controlled by the original plan. And it's very hard to have in a democratic context and one in which this private land ownership, continuity with a single plan. And even in some parts of the world where historically there were efforts to plan whole new capitals, whole new cities, where they brought in a famous architect who made a beautiful plan for the whole place. Over decades, the place changes from what the original design was for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which people want to have choice about what things are going to look like and what it can do with what their land is and what say they have in a democratic context. So just for purposes of pursuing further, the question that I ask you, J Gemma, is do you imagine that people in a democratic context can live and work and build in a way that's comprehensive, integrated