in such a way that it ‘does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.’ ”) (quoting Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980) (footnote omitted)). Additionally, mere diminution in value, absent zoning ordinances that are clearly arbitrary and capricious or that create a denial of all reasonable use, will not constitute a taking. Steel Hill Dev., Inc. v. Town of Sanbornton, 469 F.2d 956, 963 (1st Cir.1972) (“The estimated worth, had Steel Hill’s original plans been approved, is irrelevant. Though the value ... has been decreased considerably, it is not worthless or useless so as to constitute a taking.”) See also Scott v. Greenville County, 716 F.2d 1409, 1421-22 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Hagerstown Kitchens, Inc. v. Board of County
holding that it would be inequitable to allow a town to deny a permit based on a new ordinance after the property owner was denied a permit three times and brought suit to determine the validity of the prior ordinance holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that while the right to a building permit prior to issuance may be entitled to protection under the due process clause nonissuance of a permit does not destroy the value of the underlying property and thus there is no taking claim holding that if subsequent to the taking and before the trial the ordinance was actually amended to permit the previously forbidden use then that of  itself was weighty evidence of the existence at the time of the taking of the fact that there was a reasonable probability of an imminent change