Whether a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 takings claim is ripe under Williamson County's finality requirement when a city has definitively and unalterably imposed a land use regulation on a landowner?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Planning for their retirement home, Petitioners (the Pakdels) purchased a_ tenancy-in-common interest in a six-unit building in San Francisco, which gave them occupancy rights to one unit. In the meantime, they rented the unit to a tenant. The Pakdels’ purchase agreement required them to cooperate with co-owners to convert their tenancy-incommon interests into separately owned condominiums. The City later amended its condoconversion ordinance to require converting owners to offer a lifetime lease to any non-owning tenants. After the Pakdels applied for conversion, the City twice denied their request to be excused from the lifetime lease requirement. A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of the Pakdels’ regulatory takings claim, holding that the City’s decision was not “final” under Williamson County Reg’ Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), because the Pakdels had not _ exhausted administrative remedies. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Pakdels’ unconstitutional conditions claim because the condition was imposed through legislation. With nine judges dissenting, the court denied rehearing en banc. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 takings claim is ripe under Williamson County’s finality requirement when a city has definitively and unalterably imposed a land use regulation on a landowner? 2. Whether the unconstitutional conditions doctrine applies to permit conditions?