it is applied. As this allegation does not depend on the extent to which petitioners are deprived of the economic use of their particular pieces of property or the extent to which these particular petitioners are compensated, petitioners’ facial challenge is ripe. Yee, - U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1532 (emphasis in the original and citations omitted). Moreover, the Supreme Court has reached the merits of facial takings claims on numerous occasions without questioning ripeness. See, e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987) (upholding Pennsylvania statute forbidding coal mining that causes subsidence to pre-existing structures); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and
holding that the installation of asbestoscontaining materials caused immediate physical injury to the building because asbestos is ultrahazardous holding that a direct physical invasion of the property was not necessary under the 1876 constitution for a taking to occur holding that the physical occupation caused by the mandatory installation of cable television equipment was a compensable taking holding that a new york law which required a landlord to permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities on his property was a taking holding the installation of catv facilities on plaintiffs property to be a physical taking