to approve immediate prepayment upon finding that the effect of prepayment would not "materially increase economic hardship for current tenants,” including a finding that alternative housing was available for current tenants and that the supply of vacant, comparable housing would not be affected. 12 U.S.C. § 4108(a). The Court of Federal Claims found that this was not a viable alternative for the markets involved here because "HUD could not make the factual findings that were a necessary predicate for prepayment approval.” Cienega IX, 67 Fed.Cl. at 467. The record supports this finding. We will not address this option further since it was not available to the owners as a practical matter. See also Cienega Gardens v. United States, 265 F.3d 1237, 1239 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (‘‘Cienega VI”) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The parties dispute precisely how long it
holding that claims are not ripe due to appellants failure to apply for a variance and receive a final decision from the board holding that the model plaintiffs claims were ripe even though they did not seek approval from hud to prepay the mortgages holding that the plaintiffs claims against volkswagen and others did not necessarily raise a federal question since they were also based on the assertion that the plaintiffs vehicle did not comply with state law holding state action comparable even though it did not seek monetary sanction holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication