was attributable to plaintiffs, not DoITT, and does not respond to plaintiffs’ remaining allegations. The Court shall consider each of these allegations in turn. (a) Delay and Shifting Regulatory Scheme The second issue Judge Gold left open was the extensive delays that have occurred in the processing of plaintiffs’ PPT permits, which he noted “at first blush [was] sufficiently egregious to warrant a judicial response.” November 11, 2002 Report & Recommendation at 17. What at first blush concerned Judge Gold is confirmed as impermissible on a second and more sustained look. Courts have held that extensive delay, coupled with an onerous regulatory scheme, can violate the TCA, particularly when the product of the sort of unfettered discretion enjoyed by DoITT. See TCG, 305 F.3d at 71 (<HOLDING>); see also City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp., 260
holding that one minute delay between the initial stop of the defendant and the officers question regarding whether the defendant had any illegal substances and his request to search the defendants car was sufficiently contemporaneous with the issuance of the citation such that there was no appreciable delay and certainly no unreasonable delay holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable holding that a delay in challenging personal jurisdiction may result in waiver holding a three and onehalf year delay was unreasonable holding that a seven year delay in issuance of a franchise as a result of mandated negotiations with the municipality violated the tca