Pittsburgh to appeal Mt. Washington billboard ruling to Pa. Supreme Court | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Pittsburgh to appeal Mt. Washington billboard ruling to Pa. Supreme Court

Tom Davidson
1841278_web1_ptr-lamarsign02-062717
Tribune-Review file
In June 2017, Lamar’s billboard on the top of Mt. Washington displayed an ad for Sprint.

Pittsburgh lost another round in its legal fight to have a large billboard on Mt. Washington removed.

Commonweath Court on Monday denied an appeal by the city of its previous ruling against the city.

Mayor Bill Peduto plans to appeal the matter to the state Supreme Court, said his spokesman Tim McNulty.

Commonwealth Court in August ruled in favor of Lamar Advertising in its quest to keep the sign, which has been used to tout Iron City Beer, Bayer and Alcoa. It currently promotes the National Flag Foundation with an American flag.

The city claims the billboard has violated city zoning regulations since 2016 when Lamar placed a vinyl sign for Sprint on top of existing neon lettering.

Lamar contends the city violated its due process, property and free speech rights by preventing the company from modernizing the billboard with LED lighting.

McNulty wouldn’t detail why the city is persisting in its fight against the sign.

Jonathan Kamin, the Downtown attorney that represents Lamar in the protracted battle, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Tom Davidson is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tom at 724-226-4715, [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.