With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the reasoning of Stop the Beach Renourishment, supra, — U.S. at-, 130 S.Ct. at 2611, 177 L.Ed.2d at 206, and Penn Central, supra, 438 US. at 124-25, 98 S.Ct. at 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d at 648, that property owners’ interests in any particular access point are not sufficiently bound up with their reasonable expectations of ownership to constitute “property” for Fifth Amendment purposes. Thus, modification or revocation of an access point, so long as free and reasonable access remains, does not constitute a taking. This conclusion, derived from decisions of the United States Supreme Court, is consistent with the Access Act as well as the common law principle, long recognized in New Jersey, that changes in access per se are not compensable. See High Horizons, supra, 120 N.J. at 49, 575 A.2d 1360 (<HOLDING>); Lima & Sons, Inc. v. Borough of Ramsey, 269

A: holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant
B: holding that the states personal injury statutes of limitation should be applied for claims under section 1983
C: holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains
D: holding that limitation of access is accomplished under states police power and is not compensable
D.