County Commissioners, 276 Md. 435, 347 A.2d 854 (1975), the Court stated the test required to determine commencement of construction as: [a] manifest commencement of some work or labor on the ground which everyone can readily see and recognize as the commencement of a building ... begun with the intention and purpose then formed to continue the work until the completion of the building. 276 Md. at 444, 347 A.2d 854 (quoting People’s Counsel v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 259 Md. 409, 416, 270 A.2d 105 (1970)). The Court noted that it was “unpersuaded by the argument that the rule is less onerous elsewhere.... ” 276 Md. at 444, 347 A.2d 854 (quoting County Council v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691, 707, 337 A.2d 712 (1975)). See also Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Wincamp Partnership v. Anne Arundel County,
holding that the due process and equal protection clauses do not trigger tucker act jurisdiction in the courts holding that the due process requirements of jurisdiction in michigan had been met for a dispute involving property in tennessee holding that owners of partially finished house did not have property interest protected under the due process clauses until they met the minimum safety requirements holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution