With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it sought to delegate zoning power to civic associations. See id. ¶ 289. Waterfront did not seek damages in connection with Count XV and, in any event, damages would not have been a proper remedy for that facial attack, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs. 8 . Moreover, in Lighthouse the plaintiff had actually applied for and was denied a permit under the later-repealed ordinance. See Lighthouse, 510 F.3d at 259. The compensation permitted in that case was therefore connected to a specific application of the ordinance to the plaintiff. It is thus not clear that Lighthouse actually permitted a damages claim to go forward in connection with a facial challenge, as opposed to an as-applied challenge. See Tanner Adver. Grp. v. Fayette Cnty., 451 F.3d 777, 786 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 9 . The Eleventh Circuit has held that a

A: holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff
B: holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance
C: holding that plaintiff could not request damages for a facial challenge to a zoning ordinance under the first amendment because the provision had not yet harmed the plaintiff
D: holding that damages were not available to a plaintiff who challenged an ordinance under a due process theory because the plaintiff had not sought a permit and therefore any claim for damages was purely speculative
C.