failure to follow those procedures deprived United of its property interest without due process. This Court rejected United’s claim, holding that [a] “disappointed bidder” to a government contract may establish a legitimate claim of entitlement protected by due process by showing either that it was actually awarded the contract at any procedural stage or that local rules limited the discretion of state officials as to whom the contract should be awarded. Solomon, 960 F.2d at 34. We concluded that since United could not make either of these showings, its interest lay in the process alone, and that this interest was not a property interest protected by the due process clause. Id. at 35. See also Silver v. Franklin Township, Board of Zoning Appeals, 966 F.2d 1031, 1036 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Although the case before us is not a
holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board holding that discretion of zoning board was not sufficiently circumscribed to support substantive due process claim holding that 11 month delay in reversing wrongful zoning board decision did not deprive plaintiff of due process holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim