Mike Easley offers a good lesson for current and former elected officials: Steer clear of anything that even remotely looks like a sweetheart real-estate deal.

The former governor's purchase of a waterfront lot on Bogue Sound always smelled, from the time the Carolina Journal, a publication of the John Locke Foundation, first revealed that Easley appeared to have gotten a better deal than surrounding property owners.

At the time, Easley enjoyed a squeaky clean reputation. The revelation came before the high-paying state job for his wife, Mary. It came before disclosure of how his staff had deleted public e-mails.

It was before stories about gifts of cars or trips or airplane flights.

In fact, in political circles around Raleigh, many of those revelations have been surprising and even shocking.

Plenty of political observers saw Easley, a longtime criminal prosecutor, as a bit lazy and unmotivated. They didn't see him as easily succumbing to the trappings of power or as trying to enrich himself while in office.

Then came the land deal, first reported on in 2006.

The initial revelations were bad enough. Easley paid $550,000 for the lot, about 3 percent above the tax value. Subsequent buyers of nearby lots quickly paid 20 percent above tax value.

Easley's purchase also appears to have been used by the developers to try to market other lots, a no-no for public officeholders.

An Easley spokeswoman responded that the governor had received no special consideration from the developers, paid the asking price and faced greater risk as an early buyer.

The final part of that statement now appears to have come to fruition. The rest isn't looking so good.

The News & Observer of Raleigh recently reported that Easley received a $137,000 discount on the lot that didn't show up on the sales price. That and similar discounts might have helped inflate lot values for other buyers.

Several lawsuits have been filed, one involving more than 200 people who claim they got duped by a Virginia company that was flipping lots at the development by phony purchases intended to inflate the values.

There's no evidence that Easley knew anything about any attempt to inflate property values.

But in June 2006, it had become obvious that he received preferential treatment due in part to his connections and his title. It's obvious now that the deal was better than originally revealed.

Three years ago, I wrote: "Plenty of politicians, in one way or another, trade on their fame after leaving office. Easley will have plenty of time to play that game in a couple more years. He should make clear that he hasn't done so now."

I suggested then that Easley sell the lot and donate the after-tax proceeds to charity.

Too late now.

As for trading on his name and fame after leaving office, his actions while in office might have shut that window.