was not decided below, this Court could still consider it under the circumstances of the instant case.”); Tuxedo Cheverly Volunteer Fire Co. v. Prince George’s County, 39 Md.App. 322, 327, 385 A.2d 819 (1978) (“[A]ppellate courts exercise a measure of discretion in considering issues tried but not decided below. ...”). See Heat Exchangers, Inc. v. Map Constr. Corp., 34 Md.App. 679, 681, 368 A.2d 1088 (1977). Accordingly, we reject the Council’s argument that the “taking” issue is not ripe for consideration. A. General Zoning Authority In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922), the United States Supreme Court stated the general law of takings as it relates to the regulation of private property: The protection o .Supp. 991, 997-99 (D.Md.1982) (<HOLDING>); Barrett v. Poinsett County, 306 Ark. 270, 811
holding that plaintiffs claim that cloud was cast upon their title coupled with sovereign immunity asserted by the government gave rise to an unconstitutional taking was without merit because plaintiffs did not allege any harm other than to future speculative opportunities holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official holding that a plaintiffs belief that a product could fail in the future is not without more a legal injury sufficient to support plaintiffs claim holding that plaintiffs legal malpractice claim was not ripe until the appeal had been exhausted because plaintiffs harm remained speculative until then holding that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden to show that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because plaintiffs claims of prohibitive costs were too speculative