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:

1.In 2019, former real estate investor/television host Ariel Maureen ("Mo") Gull was anxious to re-establish herself in the real estate industry ("Make Ariel Great Again!"), after devastating financial losses in the 2008-2009 mortgage meltdown and a contentious, expensive divorce from her spouse and real estate business partner, former electrical contractor Gig A. Watts.The end of the second decade of the 21^st Century was disastrous for Mo (not to mention the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought almost all entertainment business to a standstill).Ariel had lost her syndicated TV real estate show ("Flipping Alhambra") and most of her assets.

2.Looking for a spectacular property to rehabilitate and spruce up with minor construction ("Build that wall!"), Ariel hoped that she could film the process and market another show to networks that had lost faith in her real estate abilities.("Honey, you couldn't get a show flipping burgers, much less houses! The only kind of flip you're going to get is a flip off!" exclaimed one network executive.)

3.Undeterred by the negativity, Ariel continued to search for the "perfect" property ("Where am I going to have to look ... under the sea?" she fretted.) and, after weeks of scouring the neighborhood, located one with a spectacular view of the scenic Alhambra arch.

4.Unfortunately for Ariel, that property was being sold by Ursula Deep, a witchy and shady character who seemed to have her tentacles in all sorts of properties.

5.Undaunted, Ariel refused to quit; she purchased the property from Ursula for $500,000 - half of which she had raised from the equity from sale of her own condo, and half of which she had borrowed from her father, Don "King" Triton.

6.Eager to own the property and not have Ursula back out of the deal, Ariel rushed though the escrow and paid little attention to the paperwork.

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.

no document is needed. can gather information from google.

https://library.municode.com/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinancessearch

the link provided can help figure out how the question can be answered