private property in the Fifth Amendment presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use without compensation .... The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it .will be recognized as a taking. 260 U.S. at 415, 43 S.Ct. at 160. The seminal case regarding the constitutionality of zoning ordinances is Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). The Supreme Court first noted that zoning ordinances were, at that time, of recent vintage predating the case by approximately twenty-five years. 272 U.S. at 386, 47 S.Ct. at 117. See Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915). The Euclid 60 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>); Kasdon v. G.W. Zierden Landscaping, Inc., 541
holding that cases claiming that government action requires just compensation must be determined on an ad hoc  basis holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that detailed exhaustion scheme of the civil rights of institutionalized persons act cripa is inconsistent with discretion to impose on an ad hoc basis a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis