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.

Facts -

3.1.On top of Ariel's other problems, 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.

Actual 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.