be rezoned from residential to commercial. After the taking, the property was rezoned from residential to commercial and defendants did build an office park on their remaining 284 acres. 3 At MDOT’s request, the jury saw the property in its posttaking state. 4 Justice Kelly states that I am mischaracterizing this Court’s holding in Eilender. I cite Eilender only for a proposition with which everybody apparently agrees — a “reasonable possibility” of rezoning should be considered when determining “just compensation.” I do not suggest that this Court in Eilender already answered the question at issue here. 5 The opposite, of course, is true as well. That is, if, at the time of the taking, there existed a “reasonable possibility” that the property would be rezoned to exclud (Iowa, 1969) (<HOLDING>). See also 9 ALR3d 291, § ll[a], p 320
holding that a rezoning ordinance enacted more than eight months after the taking although not dispositive was admissible holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months holding that forfeiture proceedings instituted eight months after the seizure of property failed to meet the promptness requirement holding that eight months between charges and dismissal created inference of causal connection