Durham was in, then out, then back in the final version of a state bill, ratified and passed yesterday, that will provide tougher oversight of tow-company operators. And while residents should be thankful to be included, we're puzzled by the ways that the bill wandered off track on its journey through the General Assembly.

In the original bill proposed by Sen. Bob Rucho, D-Mecklenburg, named 12 counties and four cities, including Durham.

Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, axed Durham from the bill because it requires property owners to place a sign 24 inches by 24 inches with the tow company's name and phone number in the lots.

He said he worried the sign's dimensions were arbitrary and instead of "holding up a colleague's bill" he asked for Durham to be omitted while he worked through the problem.

McKissick said he called city officials regarding the bill but didn't hear back until late Tuesday afternoon. Karmisha Wallace, assistant to the city manager, said the city didn't want, and was surprised, to be taken off of the bill.

Durham should never have been omitted.

The bill safeguarded city and county government authority by allowing officials to regulate towing from private lots. Durham still has the power to pass additional ordinances as the City Council sees fit.

And perhaps the city should: A provision requiring tow companies to charge "reasonable fees" and to provide the same fee for the same service was also sliced from the bill. With this redaction the law does not go far enough.

The law makes an effort with the mandatory signs and a restriction on the number of miles a vehicle may be towed, and it forces tow operators to inform drivers of their appeal rights. But with the provisions affecting selective counties and a lack of financial oversight, it falls short of the comprehensive overhaul that would truly end predatory towing.