Pittsburgh appealing court ruling on Lamar sign atop Mt. Washington | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Pittsburgh appealing court ruling on Lamar sign atop Mt. Washington

Bob Bauder
1697069_web1_ptr-MtWashSign-050319
Tribune-Review
A Lamar sign on Mt. Washington contains an advertisement for The National Flag Federation.

Pittsburgh is asking Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court to reconsider a three-judge panel’s ruling that a sign atop Mt. Washington can remain.

Pittsburgh and Lamar Advertising have battled in court for years over the Mt. Washington billboard that has featured advertising since the 1920s for such iconic local brands as Iron City Beer, Bayer and Alcoa.

Pittsburgh contends the billboard has violated city zoning regulations since 2016 when Lamar placed a vinyl sign for Sprint on top of existing neon lettering. Lamar alleges the city violated its due process, property and free speech rights by preventing the company from modernizing the billboard with LED lighting.

The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas last year ruled that the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment erred when it ordered Lamar to remove the sign.

Pittsburgh appealed to Commonwealth Court, and a three-judge panel in August upheld the county court ruling.

Pittsburgh is now asking the full court to consider its appeal.

Dan Gilman, Mayor Bill Peduto’s chief of staff, declined comment.

Downtown attorney Jonathan Kamin, who represents Lamar, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-564-3080, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.