The case law has consistently construed section 362(d)(2) to require not only that the asset in question be necessary to the contemplated reorganization but also that the reorganization contemplated be feasible. If the property in question in this case had been Love Canal, one could say that the property would be necessary for the reorganization of a debtor, because the property was essentially the only asset of the debtor and the debtor's sole business purpose was to develop the property, but one could not say that the reorganization would be feasible.