. Section 1.18 of the Mod Rehab contracts provides: "The Owner has not made, and agrees not to make, any transfer in any form of this Contract or the property without the prior written consent of the PHA.”

.The first contract (covering a portion of the Town Creek Apartments) was effective April 3, 1984 and expired by its terms March 31, 1999; prior to March 31, 1999 it was renewed for a one year term expiring March 31, 2000; prior to March 31, 2000 it was again renewed for another one year term expiring March 31, 2001. The second contract (covering the remainder of the Town Creek Apartments) was effective November 1, 1984 and expired by its terms October 31, 1999; prior to November 1, 1999 it was renewed for a one year term expiring October 31, 2000; prior to November 1, 2000, it was again renewed for a one year term expiring October 31, 2001.

. Directive Number 2001-13, Financial Management Program Requirements for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program Housing (2001).

. Murphy assumed the title of interim executive director of the MRHA on July 18, 2001. His predecessor was Bobby Hensely.

. There were 70 occupied units at Town Creek when the flood occurred. Seven of its twelve apartment buildings were badly damaged.

. The breach of duties or warranties of good faith and fair dealing, negligence and tortious interference claims against the City, on which Urban Developers lost below, are not also dismissed without prejudice, since pendent-party jurisdiction still exists.

. This appeal procedure is mandated by the State of Mississippi pursuant to its Slum *294 Clearance Statute, which provides that “[a]ny person affected by an order issued by the public officer may apply to the circuit court for an injunction restraining the public officer from carrying out the provisions of the order....” Miss.Code Ann. § 43-35-111 (2001). More generally, Mississippi also provides for an appeal to a circuit court for "[a]ny person aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the board of supervisors, or municipal authorities of a city, town, or village....” Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-75 (2001).

. This ripeness requirement follows naturally from the Fifth Amendment itself, which proscribes the taking of “property ... without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V. (emphasis added). But see San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 2508, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (Rehnquist, C J., joined by O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in the judgment) (“It is not clear to me that Williamson Countywas correct in demanding that, once a government entity has reached a final decision with respect to a claimant’s property, the claimant must seek compensation in state court before bringing a federal takings claim in federal court.”).

. See also Miss.Code Ann. § 43-37-9 (2001) (providing costs and attorneys’ fees to successful plaintiffs in inverse-condemnation actions).

.Both Mississippi constitutional claims are best understood in light of their respective United States Constitution counterparts, although the Takings Clause of the Mississippi Constitution provides somewhat broader protection of private property rights than the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. Miss. Const. Art. Ill, § 17 (“Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except on due compensation ....”) (emphasis added); see also Gilich v. State Highway Comm'n, 574 So.2d 8, 11 (Miss. 1990). The federal and Mississippi due processes clauses, on the other hand, although worded slightly differently, are implemented identically. Compare U.S. Const. amend. XIV with Miss. Const. Art. III, § 14; see also Tucker v. Hinds Coun