decide today. The Tahoe Court did not explicitly overrule, or even discuss, the ripeness rule articulated in Riverside Bayview., Thus Boise argues, in essence, that the Court overruled Riverside Bayview sub silentio in footnote 31 of its opinion in Tahoe. Despite the narrowness of its holding, the Court in Tahoe provided an exceptionally thorough analysis of the landscape of takings law. It is worth noting that in its painstaking treatment of takings jurisprudence, the Court'did not discuss ripeness at all, and did not explicitly overrule, limit, distinguish, or even, mention Riverside Bayview. The rule that a taking does not ripen unless a permit is applied for and denied actually predates Riverside Bayview. See Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm’n, 473 U.S. at 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108 (<HOLDING>); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining &
holding that the secretary is not entitled to deference when construing the acts implementing regulations holding in land use situations courts have concluded in order for a regulatory takings claim to be ripe there must be a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue holding that retroactive application of agency regulations promulgated after the conduct at issue is disfavored holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it