With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was allowed access on request. Id. The Court of Federal Claims drew a comparison between 767 Third Avenue Associates ’s facts and those relating to the 1992 and 1994 fences by noting that JRS & G was allowed access to its plant area shortly after it protested the fences. Id. However, unlike 767 Third Avenue Associates, the government physically entered JRS & G’s property for a prolonged period. Further, remediation equipment was stored on the property for extended periods, and permanent physical structures, fences, were erected. The mere fact that JRS & G was allowed access to portions of the property on request does not alter the fact that the government had a presence of a “permanent nature” on JRS & G’s leasehold not later than 1994. See Skip Kirchdorfer, Inc., 6 F.3d at 1583 (<HOLDING>). In addition to concluding that all the events

A: holding such agreements to be per se illegal
B: holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable
C: holding that retention of some access rights  does not preclude a per se taking
D: holding access to property by navigable lake was per se bar to finding of necessity
C.