complex informational requirements, provisions allowing the city to demand “such other information as the city may reasonably require,” and provisions granting the city broad discretion in determining whether an application was “in the best interest of the public.” Id. at 1270. The court explained that these provisions allow the city “unfettered discre tion” to prohibit the provision of services. See also TCG New York, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 305 F.3d 67, 82 (2d Cir.2002) (“[T]he Ordinance’s provisions allowing the White Plains Common Council to consider any factor deemed to be in the public interest provide precisely the sort of discretion to prohibit telecommunications services that § 253 preempts.”); TC Systems, Inc. v. Town of Colonie, 263 F.Supp.2d 471, 483 (N.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>). Like the ordinances and regulations in the
holding that agency is bound by its regulations holding preenforcement challenge to registration requirements for abortion providers justiciable where the regulations  provided for the closing of any abortion service that  would be in violation of any of the board of healths regulations and where the defendants had the power to deny authorization to those seeking to operate an abortion facility as well as the power to order the closing of any facility that it deems not in compliance with its regulations holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it holding that towns franchise regulations violated section 253a because the regulations provided the town with unbounded discretion to pick and choose between providers holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue