Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
tenants, and brokers verified that the increased proximity decreased the building’s market value. Further, contrary to the court of appeals’ conclusion, there is evidence that other landowners in the area did not suffer the same injuries. The land north of INP was vacant, and the properties south of INP endured only minor changes. Additionally, there is no evidence that the frontage road’s relocation impaired the perceived safety of any buildings on those properties or placed them in violation of city ordinances or deed restrictions. And, in any event, even if the condemnation did affect some neighboring landowners similarly, “injury to several landowners on the same street is not community injury simply because they all suffer alike.” Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 781. In sum, .1965) . The court of appeals agreed with the State
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing no right to damages if landowner retains reasonable access to property after a condemnation
B. holding that where by virtue of state action access is limited but remains reasonable there is no such denial of access as entitles the landowner to compensation
C. holding that landowner was entitled to compensation because the condemnation destroyed all reasonable access to remainder property
D. holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property
E. recognizing when a lease terminates upon condemnation tenant is entitled to no compensation for loss of leasehold interest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.