Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona's to push have the City Council amend the City Charter so that the rail transit issue can be on the November ballot is off base.

Under city rules, Stop Rail Now missed the May cutoff date to get the issue on the November ballot. That leaves a special election, which as rail opponents themselves rightly note, would be "a needless waste of taxpayer dollars."

Enough said.

Then out of the wings comes Aiona, who is urging the council to put a City Charter amendment related to rail on the ballot this fall.

That's the wrong move on several fronts. First, the City Charter is not a document to be chronically tampered with or taken lightly; it's the wrong vehicle for any rail initiative. Second, forcing a charter change would set a dangerous precedent for similar actions in the future, a risk the council should not take. And third, to allow any group with a particular agenda to sidestep city rules in such a manner is wrong, and simply not good governance.

It's unfortunate, if not irresponsible for both Gov. Linda Lingle — who days ago signed the Stop Rail Now petition that states "Honolulu mass transit shall not include trains or rail transit" — and Aiona to insert themselves into the debate at this juncture in such a divisive manner.

Both have had ample time and opportunity over the years to weigh in on the project. Indeed, their departments have been working with the city on this $3.7-billion project. The Legislature approved the transit tax, the governor allowed it to become law, and the state has been taking its share of the tax collections. Dozens of public hearing have been held, the route and technology selected and millions of federal dollars approved for the project. If either had reservations, where were they then?

"It's simply not fair to take the money from the tax and dump it into the general fund and in the process, risk support of the Federal Transit Administration and the Congress by injecting the state into what is profoundly a city responsibility," says U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie. "It's utterly irresponsible. It is almost incomprehensible at this stage. It hamstrings the congressional delegation's ability to provide crucial federal funds, without which we cannot succeed with any transit proposal."

For his part, Sen. Daniel Inouye says he supports the project as one that would benefit the entire community. "With the tax in place, I had hoped political leaders would resolve their differences and allow this much-needed traffic solution to move forward."

Indeed, it's time to find the way forward. What's needed is a practical discussion to ensure Honolulu ends up with the most-efficient transit system possible. There are many productive ways to encourage that public debate.

The environmental review process offers multiple opportunities to weigh in on the project.

The City Council is also considering a bill to create a transit authority. It deserves careful consideration.

While key details remain to be ironed out — including the scope of authority the new entity would have — if done right, a transit authority could help defuse some of the politics surrounding the transit issue.

A transit authority could also help shape the community discussion on development along the rail line.

As Abercombie puts it, a transit authority would put the debate "back into the hands of the community that will be affected economically, socially, geographically" by the project.

That's a good thing. Anything that elevates the politically charged rhetoric would be a welcome change.