rezoning existed at the time of the taking than would the fact that the property was not subsequently rezoned. 9 The plurality is impressive in the breadth of the analogies that it brings to bear in its analysis, ranging from probability to the stock market to psychology. If, as I understand it to be the plurality’s point, the future is unpredictable, I am persuaded. If, on the other hand, it is the plurality’s point that when the future becomes the present it is of no relevance in assessing what the prospects yesterday were of that future, I respectfully disagree. 10 Other states have held that evidence of a posttaking rezoning is admissible to help the jury determine the “just compensation” due for the taking. Roach v Newton Redevelopment Auth, 381 Mass 135, 137; 407 NE2d 1251 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Bembinster v Wisconsin, 57 Wis 2d 277,
holding that the type of evidence which has been admitted as material as tending to prove a reasonable probability of change includes    the actual amendment of the ordinance subsequent to the taking holding that ajctual amendment of the zoning law subsequent to the taking may be weighty evidence of such a prospect holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of requests to change zoning or comprehensive zoning plans holding that if subsequent to the taking and before the trial the ordinance was actually amended to permit the previously forbidden use then that of  itself was weighty evidence of the existence at the time of the taking of the fact that there was a reasonable probability of an imminent change