its property without permission from the Corps. The Court discussed how government land use regulations may “under extreme circumstances” amount to a taking of the subject land. Id. 474 U.S. at 126, 106 S.Ct. at 459. Even if a permit is denied there may be other viable uses available to the owner. “Only when a permit is denied and the effect of the denial is to prevent ‘economically viable’ use of the land in question can it be said that a taking has occurred.” Id. 474 U.S. at 127, 106 S.Ct. at 459. “Whether the denial of a permit would constitute a taking in any given case would depend upon the effect of the denial on the owner’s ability to put the property to productive use.” Id. n. 4. See also Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 563 So.2d 622, 624 (Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). It cannot be concluded that a permit denial
holding that a zoning regulation which deprives property of all economically beneficial or productive use is a categorical regulatory taking holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property holding that although authorization was initially given for property exercise of that control continued to be authorized only because the defendant deceived the rightful owner of the property into believing that a legitimate use was being made of the property