David Lucas paid $$975,000$ for two residential parcels on the Isle of Palms near Charleston, South Carolina. His intention was to build houses on them. Two years later, the South Carolina legislature passed a statute that prohibited building beachfront properties. The purpose was to leave the dunes system in place to mitigate the effects of hurricanes and strong storms. The South Carolina Coastal Commission created the rules and regulations with substantial input from the community and from experts and with protection of the dune system primarily in mind. People had been building on the shoreline for years, with harmful results to localities and the state treasury. When Lucas applied for permits to build two houses near the shoreline, his permits were rejected. He sued, arguing that the South Carolina legislation had effectively taken his property. At trial, South Carolina conceded that because of the legislation, Lucass property was effectively worth zero. Has there been a taking under the Fifth Amendment $($as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment$),$ and if so$,$ what should the state owe to Lucas? Suppose that Lucas could have made an additional $$1$ million by building a house on each of his parcels. Is he entitled to recover his original purchase price or his potential profits?