Property rights advocates suffered a second setback when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a takings case from Florida. A man and his mother had purchased 40 acres, including 32 acres of swampland, in 1973 and began attempting to develop a housing tract and marina in 1980. They received state and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits in the early 1980s, but one state agency asked Monroe County to reconsider the project. The landowners sued and won, and the county again granted approvals in 1989. In the meantime, however, the original Corps of Engineers dredge-and-fill permit expired. The Corps refused to issue a new permit because of concerns about the Lower Keys marsh rabbit and the silver rice rat, both of which had been listed as endangered species since the corps issued the first permit. The landowners sued for damages, arguing that they had been deprived of all economically viable uses of their property. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the property owner had no "reasonable, investment-backed expectations of developing his land" because the Corps of Engineers had long considered environmental factors when reviewing permit applications. Thus, the landowner was not entitled to payment for a government taking. The landowners' attorneys argued that "consideration of investment-backed expectations plays no role in per se takings" and that the 11th Circuit misread Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), a landmark takings case that required compensation when regulations prohibit "all economically beneficial use of the land." The case is Good v. United States, 99-881.