This sounds like a plan.

Mayor Mufi Hannemann has announced his intention to veto the ban on Waikiki street performers that the City Council just passed, primarily to avoid a courtroom fight over the law's constitutionality.

Good. It makes no sense to embark on a crackdown that will only end up costing the city money in lawyers' fees, defending a ban that, from a free-speech standpoint, seems indefensible.

This should not be seen as a major policy confrontation between the mayor and the council. After all, both sides appear to agree that some kind of regulation or limits are needed for the popular but occasionally disruptive activity.

Hannemann's compromise involves the imposition of a license fee on those seeking an audience, and this sounds workable. Similar systems are in place in other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, which has found a way to balance the desire for a lively street scene with the need for public order.

In Honolulu, it would be smart to set the fee at a higher than token amount to help pay for staff time to handle this chore. The suggested $20 to $25 fee sounds too skimpy.

The city also would have to schedule street performers to appear on a rotating basis in one of six sought-after sites. This could keep the crowds to a more manageable size, less likely to spill into the street and pose a safety hazard.

At the heart of the plan is the idea of sharing available space for performers, rather than an effort to muzzle them at specific times.

Within the bounds of allowing for free expression, the licensing scheme might also offer an opportunity for the city to encourage street performances or activities that create a Hawaiian "sense of place," such as lei vendors.

The council should rethink its regulatory scheme, just as it did in the case of the Waimea Valley settlement when a better idea came along. Nobody can fault lawmakers for the need to revise a plan. Admitting the need to do it over is far better than following a bad idea over a cliff.