... are not the criteria for establishing confiscation.... ”); Rockshire Civic Ass’n v. Mayor of Rockville, 32 Md.App. 22, 38, 358 A.2d 570, cert. denied, 278 Md. 732 (1976) (“Reduction of the initially approved commercial areas would clearly result in financial detriment to the owner of the property, but unless it would deprive the owner of all reasonable use of his property, such action may not be unconstitutionally impermissible.”); Dustin v. Mayor of Rockville, 23 Md.App. 389, 415, 328 A.2d 748 (1974), vacated on other grounds, 276 Md. 232, 346 A.2d 447 (1975) (“Rezoning in such a case would be impermissible only when the owner was deprived of all beneficial use of the property.”). But see Carl M. Freeman Assocs. v. State Rds. Comm’n, 252 Md. 319, 329, 250 A.2d 250 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the standard has been that for there to
holding that where the sole purpose of the ordinance was to freeze property values so that the property could be subsequently acquired for a public purpose the walls of jericho must fall holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate recognizing that leased property is exempt from taxation where the lessee uses it for a public purpose holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation holding that combating blight is a permissible public purpose and upholding the taking of property for that purpose even when the specific property taken is not in a blighted condition