Who among the hundreds of people who packed City Hall recently to debate the ever-divisive Icon tower proposal left satisfied?

Certainly not the developer, who hoped the $75 million high-rise he's pushed for two years would inch closer to approval.

Certainly not Canton activists, who wished the City Council committee would vote down the condominium plan they've fought since Day One.

But maybe the politicians, who, by not voting at all, seemed to sidestep a sticky issue with potential for repercussions in an election year.

The council's silence, however, appears to be backfiring. The developer and the Canton community - who seemingly agree on nothing else - are demanding a vote. Both sides want a final answer on the project that has weighed on the waterfront neighborhood for nearly two years.

As a result, a vote could come as soon as tomorrow, officials said late last week.

"It's a head-scratcher for us because it seems like there are people who just don't want the debate to happen," says Marco Greenberg, vice president of Cignal Corp., the Timonium-based firm behind the Icon. "It seems like there's been this effort to hold it back, to delay, to sit on it, and that's what's happening again.

"There's a little bit of gamesmanship being played."

Adds Nancy A. Braymer, a Canton Square resident and Icon opponent: "I think it's important that the elected officials make it absolutely clear what their position on this is."

The Icon faced steep odds going into the April 18 hearing before the council's land use committee. Not only did the councilman representing Canton oppose it, so did Mayor Sheila Dixon.

Dixon and Councilman James B. Kraft had repeatedly said they would follow Canton's lead on the Icon. In other words, if the people who would have to live near the tower didn't want it, they would support them.

The Icon's prospects were so bleak, committee members discussed canceling the hearing altogether. Instead, they just nixed the voting part - a long-favored political tactic that allows officials to essentially shelve unpopular legislation without having to go on the record.

But this time the council didn't just skip the vote - they announced that they were "delaying" it so the city's Transportation Department could finish a report on traffic problems in the southeastern part of town.

Cignal executives immediately cried foul. Why was their project getting held up when much bigger projects in Southeast Baltimore - the Legg Mason/Four Seasons towers, for one - were being whisked to approval?

Community activists were just as skeptical. They wondered if this "delay" meant the council would eventually approve the project.

With the entire council and the mayor running for re-election this year, both sides figured campaign politics were at play.

"For a politician to publicly support the project right now, they might lose votes. If they were to publicly oppose the project, they might lose votes," Greenberg said. "The only thing for them to do is nothing. Don't show leadership, just maintain the status quo."

Paul Robinson, a Federal Hill community activist who attended the hearing to support Canton, agreed. Without the election in the equation, he said, the council's inaction on the very-public Icon dispute makes little sense.

"It's either incredibly cynical or a brilliant political move," he said. "Maybe both. I'd like to meet the puppet master."