With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". analyzed on the merits under Penn Central instead of dismissed as not ripe under Riverside Bayview and Tabb Lakes. The Court in Tahoe did not confront a situation in which the delay alleged to be a taking arose only from a reasonable time taken to consider a permit application. Nor did the Court have to consider a case in which a takings claim is brought despite the fact that the permit was never denied or was actually granted. The moratoria in Tahoe admitted of no exceptions; no permits or variances could be granted, and therefore the purported taking ripened immediately upon application of the morato-ria to the property at issue. In contrast, in this case (as in Tabb Lakes, Wyatt, and Riverside Bayview), the permitting agency had not yet decided whether to grant the permi Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, that rule has been consistently

A: holding the substantially advances formula is not a valid takings test and indeed  it has no proper place inour takings jurisprudence
B: holding that no takings claim can arise unless a permit is denied
C: holding that takings claim does not ripen until a permit application is denied
D: holding there can be no claim for bad faith when an insurer has promptly denied a claim that is in fact not covered
B.