The developer of a corner property in downtown Washington, D.C. seeks to construct a 12-story office building (permitted as a matter of right under applicable zoning) on a piece of land that, until now, has been vacant and used only as a surface parking lot. As a condition of approval for the new office building, the District of Columbia has required that the developer dedicate to public use as a public plaza a portion of the property located in front of the building at the intersection on which the property sits. This is consistent with the zoning requirement that new office buildings be designed in accordance with the goal of "improving the pedestrian experience." The area requested by the District represents approximately 20% of the land area of the property. The District has demanded that the plaza contain public art, furniture for public use and passive recreation, and trash/recycling receptacles, and that the property owner maintain the area as a public plaza in perpetuity. Review Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013). Do you think that the District's request is constitutional? Why or why not?