Last Friday, flanked by city department heads and a third of the city council in a crowded City Hall conference room, Mayor Greg Nickels did what would have been inconceivable a year ago: He announced that the city was "withdrawing its support for the monorail," rescinding a right-of-way agreement with the monorail agency, and putting the monorail concept on the ballot a fifth and presumably final time. In making his announcement, Nickels gave the monorail agency five days to come up with an alternative ballot measure of its own. "Cost cuts forced by the monorail's revenue problem have significantly compromised the design and functionality of the system," Nickels intoned. "It is no longer the Green Line promised to voters."

Nickels's language was almost identical to that of monorail opponents who tried to revoke the agency's permits last year through the "monorail recall" initiative, I-83. And taken together, his two proposals—the dissolution of the transit-way agreement, combined with his proposed up-or-down referendum on the monorail—would have the same effect as that initiative, which was rejected by voters overwhelmingly last November.

Although Nickels said he would "work with the agency" if voters validated the monorail a fifth time, he stopped short of promising to reinstate the transit-way agreement, saying only, "If the voters say yes [to the monorail] we'll work with that." In private conversations, however, Nickels has reportedly said he does not plan to reinstate the city's agreement with the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP).

The response to Nickels's announcement—from monorail supporters, the companies under contract to build the system, and the SMP itself—was instantaneous and defiant. Standing with interim executive director John Haley in the monorail agency's fluorescent-lit basement meeting room one hour after the mayor's announcement, monorail board chair Kristina Hill was grim but resolved. "We are not afraid of the voters," Hill told reporters. "We believe we have a good project... and we're very confident that if this issue was on the ballot the voters would be fair to it." However, she added, "If the voters rejected it... I think it would be the end of the project."

One day after Nickels's announcement, the monorail board held an unusual Saturday meeting to discuss alternative ballot measures of its own. Among them: a proposal to cut costs by shortening the line; a measure that would save money by running the line directly down Second Avenue; and a legally binding proposal asking voters whether the monorail should continue. On Tuesday, board member Cleve Stockmeyer said the agency might defy the mayor's ultimatum and decline to put anything on the ballot at all. Given that the mayor's resolution is merely advisory, Stockmeyer says, it might not make sense for the agency to rush to the ballot with a resolution that would be legally binding. Letting the mayor's measure move forward would also give the agency time to come up with a new proposal—something that could ultimately help it emerge victorious in November.

The monorail board was scheduled to discuss its alternatives at back-to-back meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, after the Stranger's press time. Council members, including monorail supporters Nick Licata and Jan Drago, say they would prefer a measure shortening a line to the mayor's nonbinding proposal.

The mayor did raise legitimate questions about the monorail's revenues, which the agency predicts will grow at a rate of 6.1 percent a year. The city's finance director, Dwight Dively, argues that a growth estimate that is twice the rate of inflation is unrealistic. A 5.1 percent growth rate, the mayor's office has argued, would be more in line with Sound Transit's projections; but that, Hill notes, would only allow for a $900 million to $1.2 billion monorail—"not much project" compared to the current $2 billion proposal. The bottom line, Hill says, is that "they're asking us to lower [our projections] very significantly based on the recommendation of one local economist," Sound Transit consultant Dick Conway, "and I don't think we're prepared to do that at this time."

The mayor's motivation for pushing a ballot measure now—instead of in several months, after the SMP's Haley has had time to come up with a workable finance plan to replace the rejected $11 billion proposal—is unclear. Some have hypothesized that Nickels wants to free up the monorail's revenue stream, a 1.4 percent tax on car values, to pay for the costly Alaskan Way tunnel, estimated at more than $4 billion. Others note that without some kind of public vote, the state legislature may simply shut the project down when it reconvenes in January.

One thing is certain: Nickels's decision to abandon the monorail as soon as it ran into financial difficulty seems inconsistent with his adamant support for Sound Transit's light rail, which was dramatically cut and went $1 billion over budget without the benefit of a public vote. Stockmeyer says the mayor has used "a complete double standard" when dealing with the monorail and Sound Transit. "It's very inconsistent for the mayor to complain that the monorail has changed when he just voted to cut one of the most important [light rail] stations," First Hill.

Nickels's brash proposal could always backfire, if—and some believe this is a good possibility—voters are fed up with being asked whether they support the monorail. Remember, last year's "monorail recall" initiative failed by a nearly two-to-one margin. Stockmeyer, a monorail veteran, recalls that when the council killed the first Elevated Transportation Company in 1999, "it fueled this populist effort that sprang up overnight"—something he predicts will happen again if a fifth monorail measure goes to the ballot.

Meanwhile, the consortium of firms that recently signed a contract to build the monorail, Cascadia Monorail Company, was reportedly considering a suit against the city, on the grounds that the mayor could not simply "cancel" the legally binding transit-way agreement without consulting the other parties to the agreement. On Sunday, Hill said that she didn't "think the mayor has the authority to unilaterally cancel the transit-way agreement," adding that if Cascadia were to sue the city, "I'm open to us joining into that sort of suit."

barnett@thestranger.com