RALEIGH – It’s a reliable cycle in North Carolina politics. When a legislative session ends, the ratings game begins. Politicians, lobbyists, and pundits assign credit and blame for bills passed or stymied. They pick out individual leaders or lawmakers who made a difference, positively or negatively, and hold up particular issues as having either dominated the session or been woefully neglected.

I’ll eschew the personalities – most of the ratings of lawmakers tends towards rewarding the exercise of raw power, anyway, not true statesmanship or sound policymaking – and simply point to a mostly losing cause this year: the property rights of North Carolinians.

Going into the 2008 session of the General Assembly, there were two major opportunities for property-rights protection, reining in eminent domain and annexation, and one major danger, a draconian set of drought-management policies proposed by Gov. Mike Easley. By the end of the session, the outcome wasn’t quite disastrous, but it certainly wasn’t pretty.

First, the road not taken. Having changed North Carolina’s statutes governing eminent domain a couple of years ago, Democratic leaders said they saw no reason to go further, as our neighboring states have, by amending the state constitution to protect property owners from Kelo-style abuse. The Democratic leadership is mistaken. As the John Locke Foundation’s Daren Bakst explains, the 2006 bill did not clearly prohibit governments from seizing private land for the private use of business owners. While the bill made some improvements, a statute can never offer as much protection from abuse as a constitutional amendment, since the former can be changed by a future legislature, even within an obscure special provision in a budget bill, while a well-written constitutional amendment would be clear-cut and lasting.

Unfortunately, legislative leaders refused to allow a hearing on legislation to authorize a public referendum on a constitutional amendment that would limit government takings to truly public uses. This was not a surprising conclusion to the story, but it was a disappointing one. It may also prove to be politically unwise. Public concern about eminent-domain abuse crosses traditional partisan divisions.

Next, the road not taken far enough. At the beginning of the year, a broad-based coalition of policy organizations and grassroots groups promulgated shared principles for reforming North Carolina’s annexation laws, which are among the most egregious in the United States. Like-minded members of the N.C. House, Democrats and Republicans alike, agreed that local governments shouldn’t enjoy their current ability to force neighborhoods into municipal limits without any meaningful representation in the process or promise of the timely delivery of municipal services.

Recognizing the need to suspend involuntary annexation while lawmakers craft a comprehensive reform, the House overwhelmingly approved a moratorium bill. But then Sen. Tony Rand (D-Cumberland) unilaterally killed consideration of the moratorium in the Senate, offering a spurious excuse. The General Assembly did end up approving a new study commission that could generate a reform bill for 2009. House Speaker Joe Hackney says that he’ll reappoint the members of the previous House panel, which is promising, but we’ll have to see what the Senate leadership does.

As for the road taken, the drought-management bill, the version that passed at the end of the session wasn’t as appalling as Easley’s original proposal. Most notably, it excluded private wells from stringent state monitoring or regulation. Having kicked property owners in the face twice in 2008, on eminent domain and annexation, the Democratic leadership probably didn’t want to provoke an even-broader public outcry. Still, the bill gives the governor far more authority over local and private decisions than is warranted or wise. It makes insufficient use of variable pricing to encourage water conservation without infringing on personal freedoms or property rights.

In 2008, the legislative majority neglected the cause of property rights when it wasn’t actually doing injury to the cause. Here’s hoping the 2009 session yields a happier ending.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.