the necessity for government to be able to take private property for governmental purposes, see The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison), that power could be exercised only by making the private property owner whole. Thus the distinction plaintiffs attempt to draw is unavailing. Analytically, whether common law-based tort and contract law is subject to statutes of limitations, with or without sovereign immunity in the case of suits against the government, is unrelated to the question of whether constitutionally based takings claims may be made subject to such statutes. Which leads to the question of the applicable law. This court hears a goodly number of takings cases. In some the plaintiff property owner prevails. See, e.g., Ciéne-ga Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Palm Beach Isles Assocs. v. United States,
holding that unenforced tobacco regulations did not constitute a taking of vending machine owners contracts holding that island owners had rights to the thread of the channel holding housing statutes create no rights in tenants for purposes of section 1983 holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs holding that statutory abrogation of lowincome housing owners contract rights was a taking