The attached article titled \"Lafayette council approves parking area for Rohrman,\" says that the city is vacating a city easement, so Rohrman can build a parking area behind his dealership. If Rohrman had not agreed to contract and had not actually traded for the city easement, but had instead built the parking garage on the city's easement, and had used it for 40 years, then which of the following would be correct? Rohrman could get ownership of the city's easement by adverse possession. Rohrman could get ownership of the city's easement by prescriptive easement. Rohrman could not get ownership of the city's easement, since it belongs to government. Rohrman could get ownership of the city's easement by eminent domain. Rohrman could get ownership of the city's easement by nuisance law. 9999'! If the easement had belonged to you or me, rather than government and apply the same facts as in question 17, which would be the best answer? a. Rohrman could get ownership of the easement by adverse possession. b. Rohrman could get ownership of the easement by prescriptive easement. c. Rohrman could not get ownership of the easement, since it belongs to government. d. Rohrman could get ownership of the easement by eminent domain. e. Rohrman could get ownership of the easement by nuisance law