to the Plaintiffs. If Plaintiffs’ lots diminished in value, the various alleged causes for this harm — WSP’s negligence, the negligence of various engineers and contractors, the negligence of the County — are all related to privatized development and the regulation of privatized development. In sum, Plaintiffs do not state a valid takings claim under any takings theory, and Pima County is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. 2. Pima County is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim In order to state a claim for substantive due process, Plaintiffs must allege that Pima County engaged in arbitrary and irrational conduct that deprived Plaintiffs of a legally cognizable interest in their real property. See Lingle, 544 U.S. at 542, 125 S.Ct. 2074 (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Plaintiffs have alleged
holding that although state is not required to operate welfare program it must do so in accordance with the due process clause holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law holding that to comport with due process the legislation must have a rational basis for the deprivation and may not be so inadequate that the judiciary will characterize it as arbitrary holding that deprivation of real property although it would no longer constitute a taking might be so arbitrary or irrational that it runs afoul of the due process clause holding that deprivation of property must conform to due process principles