In fact, some now argue that the needs of agriculture and the pressures on agricultural land today are far different than they were back in 1978. What seemed to make sense then makes little sense today, they say.

The 1978 convention had a strong environmentalist streak. One of the primary focuses, with Harris taking a lead role, was on preservation of agriculture against the threats of development and land speculation.

So delegates wrote into the state Constitution a provision: The state would identify and designate agricultural lands of importance (so-called "prime cuts") and create an extra level of protection against development around them.

Once those lands were identified, delegates said, they could not be rezoned out of agriculture without a two-thirds, or "super majority" vote of the Land Use Commission or whatever regulatory body had jurisdiction.

However, despite years of trying, the state has never been able to come up with that designation. And over the decades, some clearly prime agricultural lands have been developed, mostly for suburban housing.

The reason for the inaction was fairly obvious. Most of the big landowners — trusts and corporations — resisted the idea of having any of their land "locked up" for agriculture and realistically unavailable for development.

Indeed, they argued that they had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the current and future value of their lands for beneficiaries and shareholders.

"The landowners are concerned that just putting a circle around the land is a quasi-artificial solution," said Bill Paty, chairman of that 1978 Constitutional Convention, later director of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources and now a trustee of the land-holding Robinson Estate.

"It puts them in a situation where they can't use the land, while much of the (agricultural) land available today is not used because they can't find the farmers," Paty said.

"If you are going to keep the country country, you have to have the land in production. Leaving it open to haole koa and guinea grass is not the way to go in the long run."

A better approach would be a package of incentives that encourage landowners to keep property in agriculture and also encourage people to go into farming, Paty said.

That's effectively what was before the Legislature earlier this year.

A compromise approach developed by an agriculture working group got through both houses last session but failed in conference.

Gov. Linda Lingle signaled she was ready to sign the bill if it passes.

Refocusing efforts

Many of those involved in that working group will come back next session with another attempt. The new focus is on coming up with ways to preserve and protect agriculture rather than using agricultural zoning as a barrier to development.

But Harris, who steps down in a few weeks, has decided he cannot wait. In one of his last major acts as mayor, he has called the City Council into an unusual special session on Tuesday to take up what is known as Bill 74. This bill attempts to achieve, at the county level, what the state has failed to do for the past 25 years.

Council members say there is little chance of success, in part because they feel they are being rushed and partly because they believe the Legislature is getting closer to a solution.

Honolulu Managing Director Ben Lee, Harris' point man on this effort, dismisses the idea that this is could be put off for another council, another administration.

"Whether it's this administration or the next, it's good policy," Lee insists.

In essence, what Bill 74 does is identify some 84,000 acres on O'ahu that generally fit the existing definition of "important" agricultural lands. (Criteria include soil quality, rainfall, proximity to existing agricultural and current uses, and other factors).

Those lands would then be protected from subdivision or urbanization unless the change is approved by a two-thirds "super majority" of the council.

Not all of the land identified is now in active agricultural use, and some already has experienced some urbanization, Lee said.

But effectively, this ordinance, if adopted, would draw a bright line between what is up for urbanization and development and what is not.

Lee acknowledged the bill is in part a growth-control strategy, ("keep the country country") but he said it is also designed to encourage agriculture.

"The way things are now, with no stability, it discourages people from trying new things, new products," he said.

This echoes comments made previously by agriculture advocates such as Dean Okimoto, whose Nalo Farms in Waimanalo is an often-cited example of successful diversified agriculture.

Okimoto has said one of the barriers to building an agriculture industry is that farmers — most of whom operate on relatively short-term leases — have little incentive to invest heavily in equipment, supplies or other infrastructure.

If there were greater land-use stability, he argued, more might be willing to take the risk.

But Okimoto also faults the state for failing to do enough through regulation and financial incentives to help struggling farmers. He cites the example of the tax breaks and promotions designed to enhance the high-tech sector as an example.

It is this second piece of the puzzle that has become the focus of the agriculture working group.

Lee says it is a toss-up as to whether there are enough votes on the nine-member council to push Bill 74 through on Tuesday.

Councilman skeptical

Councilman Charles Djou, a leading skeptic of the effort, says he believes the proposal is dead on arrival.

Harris, he says, has the right to call the council into session but he cannot force a vote.

"The mayor is trying to get a county ordinance to do what the state should do," Djou said. "It's the state's responsibility."

Djou acknowledges the state has failed to act, but he said action last session and the efforts of the agriculture working group convince him that something is about to happen.

"Leadership has said in 2005 something will come out, and I think that's reasonable," he said. "In fact, if we pass this, it gives the Legislature an excuse not to pass an important ag lands bill."

Dean Uchida, executive director of the Land Use Research Foundation, agrees that the Legislature may finally be ready to act.

Part of the explanation, he says, is that the conversation is gradually shifting from using this concept as a way to prevent development or protect green space into one that focuses on helping agriculture.

That's an approach that may lead to successful compromise, but it is not likely to satisfy environmentalist and growth-control advocates such as Harris, who say there is inherent value in moderating development and protecting open space.

Uchida argues that this is outmoded thinking.

"This kind of futile 'Field of Dreams' approach won't work (to preserve agriculture)," he said. "You have to have incentives.

"Just locking up the land for open space is not going to help agriculture.

"What's the point of locking up a million acres of land statewide?" he added. "Where are the farmers going to come from?"

A more sensible approach, Uchida argues, is to look at where agriculture is successful and find ways to stimulate and encourage it there. And that won't always be on "prime cut" land, he notes.

On the Big Island, the Kona coffee "belt" is thriving although the land there falls far short of the criteria used to define prime lands, he said. Nearby Kohala does fit the prime category but is largely fallow.

'Fundamental mistake'

Both sides on this issue have plenty of facts and figures to throw around. Uchida points out that there are thousands of acres designated for agriculture (mostly former sugar and pineapple plantations) that are fallow because no one can find the farmers and crops to make use of them.

Finding farmers, developing, encouraging and promoting alternate crops and offering resources is the right answer if the goal is to promote agriculture, Uchida said.

"There's a huge opportunity for the state there, but what do you accomplish when you simply lock up lands?"

Lee contends that Bill 74 hardly "locks up" lands. It simply raises the bar slightly for rezoning and offers farmers a somewhat greater sense of stability.

And he insists that even under current zoning and land-use designations, there is plenty of capacity to keep home-builders busy for decades, putting up thousands of homes every year.

So: plenty of agricultural land, not enough farmers; plenty of urban land, not enough homes. What are policy-makers to do?

The best bet is that the City Council will defer or delay on Tuesday. Harris can lead these horses to water, but he cannot make them drink.

Still, the mayor says the effort he helped launch in 1978 is important. The goal, he says, is to help and encourage agriculture, and to impose a certain level of planning coherence on O'ahu.

"Every city in the United States has made fundamental land-use mistakes over the past 50 years which have resulted in urban sprawl and the death of cities," Harris said.

"It's been a fundamental mistake of our culture, so how do you change land-use policies to change that? This would help stop the spread of subdivisions over agricultural lands."

In addition, Harris said, the idea is crucial for the long-term health of sustainable agriculture.

"You can't get diversified agriculture because we have a lack of affordable land. You just can't grow cucumbers on $95,000-an-acre land."