THE FOLLOWING QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY USING THE FACTS SECTION BELOW.

YOU CAN CHOOSE HOW YOU WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AS LONG AS IT GETS ANSWERED

FACTS

while her case was on appeal, the City of Alhambra intervened in the dispute over ownership of the Alhambra property, claiming that the property was "absolutely essential" to the "Alhambra Alcove" project, a mixed-use project involving additional land for a park/reflecting pool overlooking the Alhambra Arch, along with privately developed ground-floor commercial space and upper-floor residential units.

3.2.By turning over a portion of the Alhambra property to private developers, the City stood to collect a great deal of additional tax revenue and, at the same time, create "urban green space" so desperately needed to beautify the neighborhood, provide recreation space, and combat global warming.

you only need to answer the overall question using EITHER the "If so, ...." OR the "Or, if not, ...." alternative that fits your conclusion(s) to the overall question.

Question -

Is

the City's "taking" of the Alhambra property and transferring part of

it to other private parties proper under recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions

and California law?

If

so, (a) being certain to identify

(by name) the powers under

California law that the City may use to acquire private property

- i.e.,

the general legal term

for the constitutional right

of a government to take private property away

from its owners for the public good; (b) set forth and briefly explain

the two legal justifications

the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for a government "taking" of

private property AND specify what the City is required to provide

to a property owner in exchange for this "taking"and

(c) being certain to cite specific Background Facts and/or

Additional Facts, explain why the City's actions are constitutionally valid and legal

under Federal and/or California law.

Or, if not, (a) being

certain to identify (by name) the powers under

California law that the City may use to acquire private property

- i.e.,

the general legal term

for the constitutional right

of a government to take private property away

from its owners for the public good; (b) set forth and briefly explain

the two legal justifications

the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for a government "taking" of

private property AND specify what the City is required to provide

to a property owner in exchange for this "taking"and

(c) being certain to cite specific Background Facts and/or

Additional Facts, explain why the City's actions are constitutionally invalid/illegal

under Federal and/or California law.