subsequently be adopted. In the case at bar, the suspension began in 1988 and extended two years or more. When the property was rezoned to a classification permitting the commercial use in 1969-70, that rezoning, not the subsequent -wishes of planners, represented the will of the residents of the county as expressed through the actions of their elected representatives in passing the rezoning. The prior rezoning permitting commercial use is the “law of the land” until it is changed by the elected representatives. We note that if the people, as expressed through the actions of their representatives, want a particular zoning or no zoning at all, that is their choice. From the facts contained in the record, a strong inference can be made from the C 66 S.Ct. 1062, 1066, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946) (<HOLDING>). See Robert M. Washburn, Land Use Control, the
holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below holding that   1252d1 bars the consideration of bases for relief that were not raised below and of general issues that were not raised below but not of specific subsidiary legal arguments or arguments by extension that were not made below holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum holding that the invasion of airspace below the governments navigational servitude was a taking