the Commission would deny approval for all uses that would enable the plaintiffs to derive economic benefit from the property.” 473 US at 187. The Williamson Court concluded that the claim was unripe for the same reason that the claim in Hodel was unripe: had the plaintiff sought and obtained available variances and waivers, the parties might have reached a mutually acceptable solution. Id. at 188-90; cf. Curran v. ODOT, 151 Or App at 787 (addressing ripeness problem under Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, the court concluded that plaintiffs failure to apply for a permit that could have obviated “takings” meant that plaintiffs claim was not ripe); Nelson v. Multnomah County, 121 Or App 119, 122, 854 P2d 476, adhered to on recons 123 Or App 300, 859 P2d 574 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The state maintains that plaintiffs claim
recognizing that dismissal is required if a plaintiff has had fair opportunity to make his case but has failed holding that a foreign citizen with no substantial connections to the us has no claim under the fifth amendments takings clause recognizing rule that if a landowner has unsuccessfully filed an application but has pursued no alternatives that could lead to approval a takings claim is unripe holding that takings claim does not ripen until a permit application is denied holding the substantially advances formula is not a valid takings test and indeed  it has no proper place inour takings jurisprudence