Task: Text Completion
Input (English): can prevail under Ebel’s balancing test. We are not convinced. Nothing in the Constitution forbids municipalities from requiring non-conforming uses to close, change their business, or relocate within a reasonable time period. Here, as in Baby Tam & Co. v. City of Las Vegas, 247 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir.2001), World Wide “furnishes no authority for the proposition that a zoning ordinance may not prohibit a use in existence before its enactment,” id. at 1006. As a general matter, an amortization period is insufficient only if it puts a business in an impossible position due to a shortage of relocation sites. This issue is conceptually indistinguishable from the First Amendment requirement of alternative avenues of communication. See Jake’s, Ltd. v. City of Coates, 284 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 948, 123 S.Ct. 413, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that form 1040 complies with pra (B) holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration (C) holding that once consent to settlement agreement is withdrawn agreement can only be enforced as a binding contract that complies with rule 11 as established by proper pleading and proof (D) holding that rcw 3712010 complies with public law 280 and is constitutional (E) holding that application of an amortization provision is constitutional as long as it complies with renton
Output (English): (E)