Suppose that you represent Six Flags Entertainment Corp. ("Six Flags"), a large company that operates amusement parks throughout the United States. Six Flags has hired you as outside legal counsel in connection with its plans to develop a new amusement park in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan area. When Six Flag signaled its interest in pursuing such a project, several Phoenix-area cities responded by offering to provide property tax credits and other incentives to the company in hopes of luring it to develop the project in their respective municipalities. However, the city of Mesa, Arizona, was even more aggressive: that city offered to use its eminent domain authority to "take" several hundred acres of land near a major freeway in an older part of town, paying affected landowners just compensation for the land. The city said that it would then lease the land to Six Flags for 99 years for just $1. Several homes and businesses on the proposed project site would have to be demolished if the project went forward. However, according to one Mesa City Council member, at least half of the proposed project area was "already pretty run down" and the project would likely bring new jobs and an economic boost to the area.

a. Assuming for purposes of this problem that there are no special state eminent laws applicable in Arizona, do you think it would be constitutional for Mesa to carry out the proposed plan? Why or why not? Please limit your answer to 100 words or less.

b. Provide at least two arguments for why cities SHOULD be legally allowed to carry out these sorts of plans to help facilitate major private development projects. Please limit your answer to 100 words or less.

c. Provide at least two arguments for why cities SHOULD NOT be legally allowed to carry out these sorts of plans to help facilitate major private development projects. Please limit your answer to 100 words or less.