1. In assessing whether the government has effected a compensable taking, may courts treat real property as worthless simply because the owner was not generating positive cashflow from the property at the time of the taking?

2. In determining whether the taking of property had any economic impact on its owner, may courts ignore reasonable, investment-backed expectations that a regulatory environment is likely to change and, in fact, has been changed by the very law that effects the taking?

Whether courts may treat real property as worthless solely because the owner was not generating positive cash flow at the time of the taking