In Paragon Properties Co v. Novi, 452 Mich 568, 577; 550 NW2d 772 (1996), the Supreme Court of Michigan, quoting Williams Co Regional Planning Comm v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 186; 105 S Ct 3108; 87 L Ed 2d 126 (1985), stated: The finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury. Importantly, finality is not required for facial challenges to an ordinance because such challenges attack the very existence or enactment of an ordinance. Paragon Properties, supra, p 577. A facial challenge is one that alleges that the mere existence and threatened enforcement of an ordinance materially and adversely affects values and curtail opportunities of all property regulated in the market. Id., p 576. On the other hand, a challenge to the validity of a zoning ordinance as applied, whether analyzed under 42 USC as a denial of equal protection, as a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, or as a taking under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, is subject to the rule of finality. Id. "An 'as applied' challenge alleges a present infringement or denial of a specific right or of a particular injury in process of actual execution." Id. The Court found that the Novi city council's denial of Paragon's request to rezone its property was not a final decision appealable to the circuit court and that Paragon's constitutional claim was not ripe for review. Id. at 581-583. The Court made no determination regarding the correctness of the decision to deny the rezoning request.