Jon,

I was just about to send this out and saw your post–you’re too fast
for me.  Also, please call me Daren on the blog (only in the
office should you call me Mr. Bakst).

Anyway, the Executive Order,
at first glance, is very well written, and captures what “public use”
really means.  I hope NC and other states utilize it as a model
for defining “public use.”  The Executive Order does a couple of
important things that may not seem obvious.  First, it clearly
only allows for the taking of truly “blighted” properties (without even
using the word blight).  It also states that private property
should not be seized for a private party’s “use” of the property (not
just “ownership” of property).  This is a critical point as
well–it gets around the problem of the government simply leasing
property to private parties.

There are some really complicated
issues, which I need to think about, as to whether the Executive Order
could’ve gone even further by placing restrictions on federal funds to
states (Existing Executive Orders do push the envelope on some
separation of powers issues, including funding).  However, it is hard to
complain–this is a powerful statement and should offer some direction
to states.

BTW: Executive Orders are misunderstood–they really
are powerful internal constraints on the Executive branch, and future
Presidents rarely overturn them.