With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not result in compensable taking of an abutting owner’s property and access); see also Deupree v. ODOT, 173 Or App 623, 629, 22 P3d 773 (2001) (in inverse condemnation claim, holding that change in grade of a state highway for legitimate regulatory purposes, which did not deprive abutting landowner of all highway access, did not result in “legal damage or injury” within the meaning of ORS 105.755 for which owners are entitled to just compensation); Dept. of Transportation v. DuPree, 154 Or App 181, 185, 961 P2d 232, rev den, 327 Or 621 (1998), cert den, 526 US 1019 (1999) (in inverse condemnation action for widening of state highway, the state’s regulatory change from two points to one point of access was not a taking); Curran v. ODOT, 151 Or App 781, 786-87, 951 P2d 183 (1997) (<HOLDING>). In short, the state is correct that the

A: holding in an inverse condemnation case that the abutting landowners right of direct access was subservient to the city of portlands proper exercise of its governmental powers for purposes of public safety and convenience and that the elimination of access from the landowners property to the affected street did not constitute a taking
B: holding that inverse condemnation claim challenging as a regulatory taking the states placement of a guard rail that blocked former access was not ripe for adjudication where owners had failed to apply for permit for alternative approach and it therefore was not possible to assess whether a taking had occurred as a result of a deprivation of all reasonable access
C: holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action
D: holding ripe a claim for a pre1987 taking because prior to first english california law did not permit landowners to seek compensation for a regulatory taking through an action in inverse condemnation
B.