With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". issue, the court inquired at oral argument whether plaintiff, who does not own property in a commercial zoning district, had standing to challenge section 19.48.015 L to the extent that section applied to commercial zoning districts. Plaintiff alleges but does not aver that he could conceivably wish to find someone who owned commercial property and seek permission to place an informational sign on that person’s property. The court concludes that plaintiff does not have standing to challenge section 19.48.015 L to the extent that section applies to commercial zoning districts, as plaintiff has not shown that he has suffered any injury as a result of the ordinance as it applies to commercial zoning districts. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 504, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Pacific Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City, 414

A: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
B: holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance
C: holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance
D: holding plaintiffs challenging zoning ordinance lacked standing because among other reasons none is himself subject to the ordinances strictures
D.