the words “prior to the arrangement of the program or project” may be given effect. To hold otherwise would effectively excise these words from the statute. But the words are there, and it must be assumed that the legislature employed them for a particular reason, to wit, the section is to apply to diversion of parkland to nonpark uses, and not to the use of parkland for other park purposes. Secondly, the whole thrust of section 26.-001(a)(2) is to require that certain findings be made by the governing body after notice and a hearing. One of the two required findings is that: [T]he program or project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land, as a park.... Id. A necessary consequence of the use of this language is that the program or project mu . 121, 123 (1920) (<HOLDING>). The appellant apparently does not challenge
holding that a foreign representative may assert under  804 only those avoiding powers vested in him by the law applicable to the foreign estate holding that a foreign defendant was not present in new york for the purposes of jurisdiction simply because it engaged in financing transactions there holding that a party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it and partys failure to do so entitles court to assume that foreign law is the same as forum law holding that a safety museum was foreign to park purposes holding that fedrcrimp 6e would prevent disclosure of witnesss testimony to foreign officials thereby negating fear of foreign prosecution and alternatively that the fifth amendment provides no shelter  against incrimination in a foreign jurisdiction where federal domestic immunity has been granted