Mrs. Florence Dolan owned a plumbing and electric supply store on Main Street in Portland, Oregon. Fanno Creek flows through the southeastern corner of Mrs. Dolan's lot, on which her store is located. She applied to the city for a permit to redevelop her lot. Her plans included the addition of a second structure. The City Planning Commission granted Mrs. Dolan's permit but included the following requirement: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the city shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/bicycle plan.

Mrs. Dolan maintained that the requirements were a taking of her property because she would be required to reserve a portion of her property for the pedestrian/bike path, and her plans would have to be redone to accom-modate the city's requirements. The city maintains that its requirements are all simply part of a redevelopment plan for the city and a means of working with the flood-plain created by Fanno Creek. Mrs. Dolan says the city has imposed additional expense and forced her to ded-icate a large portion of her lot to public use. Who is cor-rect? Is Portland taking property from Mrs. Dolan? Is the city required to pay compensation to her? [Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)]