DOWNING/SALT POND v. RI & Providence Plantations, 643 F.3d 16

Downing/Salt Pond Partners sought federal takings relief for Rhode Island regulatory actions restricting coastal development in Narragansett.
Downing obtained a 1992 CRMC Assent to develop 79 lots but faced later High Preservation/Heritage Commission (HPHC) concerns about archaeological artifacts.
HPHC advocated preservation and urged CRMC to withdraw or condition construction with data-recovery archaeology, potentially costing ~$6 million.
Downing formally requested CRMC hearings in 2008–2009; CRMC did not issue timely final decisions; Downing resumed construction in June 2009 and CRMC issued a cease-and-desist the same day.
Downing filed federal complaint in August 2009 alleging takings without just compensation and related due process/equal protection claims; court treated state remedies as ongoing administrative processes.
District court dismissed Downing’s complaint as unripe under Williamson County ripeness requirements; appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Downing is excused from the state-litigation requirement	Downing claims Rhode Island remedies are unavailable or inadequate	Rhode Island remedies are adequate under Pascoag	No; Downing failed to show absolute unavailability of Rhode Island inverse condemnation remedy
Whether finality of regulatory decisions is required for ripeness or excused	Downing argues finality not achieved due to pending agency determinations	Finality required to ripen regulatory takings claim	Court did not reach finality issue; relied on state-litigation bar to affirm dismissal

Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (two ripeness prongs for regulatory takings claims; finality and adequate compensation procedures)
Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island, 337 F.3d 87 (2003) (Rhode Island provides adequate inverse condemnation remedy; state-litigation required)
Flores Galarza v. Asociación de Subscripción Conjunta del Seguro de Responsabilidad Obligatorio, 484 F.3d 1 (2007) (discussed state remedial procedures; raised Flores Galarza test for adequacy of remedies)
San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (state-litigation rule respected; no federal forum right guaranteed)
Deniz v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 285 F.3d 142 (2002) (burden on plaintiff to show unavailability/inadequacy of state remedy)
Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island, 337 F.3d 87 (2003) (repeated here for emphasis on state remedy adequacy)
San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (reiteration of Williamson County state-litigation rule)