welfare, or morals of the public. 5. Whether the regulation is arbitrarily and capriciously applied. 6. The extent to which the regulation curtails investment-backed expectations. In Graham, the supreme court held that the denial of a permit to destroy 1800 acres of black mangroves, leaving the owner with 2800 acres and reducing by half the number of housing units the owner intended to build, was not a taking, but was instead a valid exercise of police power to prevent a public harm. In contrast to the facts in Graham, the owner sub judice was left with no economically viable uses of the land. Even a regulation that complies with the standards for the exercise of police power may still result in a taking. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes,
holding that the application of a statute prohibiting subsurface mining left the coal companys rights to underground minerals worthless and constituted a taking holding that permit denial constituted a categorical taking holding that the federal governments seizure and operation of a coal mine to prevent a coal miners strike constituted a taking holding that denial of mining companys bond release and issuance of compliance order constituted adversary adjudications holding that requirement that fee be paid to preserve unpatented mining claims was not a taking