The most civic sign

Getting to yes on the Mount Washington billboard

Instead of continuing to fight each other over the status of a huge billboard on the face of Mount Washington, the city and Lamar should negotiate a settlement that turns over the sign for civic use. The arrangement would benefit both parties. The city would get a big stage for promoting its economic and cultural achievements, while Lamar would set an example for corporate citizenship and have an opportunity to reset its relationship with the city.

Once an electronic billboard ahead of its time — a space used to advertise the Bayer Corp. and community events and to give the time and pose science quiz questions — the sign was an iconic part of Pittsburgh. It was our version of the Hollywood sign perched on the hills above Los Angeles. It could serve a lofty purpose again if Lamar and the city called a truce in their battle over zoning regulations, restrictions on content and related issues.

To ensure it likes how the billboard looks and how it is used, the city needs to own the sign or get it into the hands of a civic partner. In 2015, Mayor Bill Peduto decried Lamar’s plan to lease the space to Giant Eagle because he was appalled by the specter of cold cuts being hawked from the mountaintop. Lamar attorney Jonathan Kamin said Giant Eagle had respectable plans for the billboard — “Earn more fuel perks” would have been one message — and he accused Mr. Peduto of taking a “tyrannical” stance on sign content in violation of the First Amendment. If the city owned the sign, there would be no such worries.

The parties discussed a sale or donation once before. Mr. Kamin said the company offered to give the city the billboard, which he valued at about $20 million, plus $1 million over 10 years. In return, he said, Lamar wanted the city to settle various legal disputes the parties have, one involving a city billboard tax that Lamar considers illegal and has temporarily blocked the city from implementing. Kevin Acklin, Mr. Peduto’s chief of staff, said talk of donation stalled because the city could not accept Lamar’s requests, starting with its rejection of the billboard tax and including an extension of Lamar’s contract for advertising on bus shelters.

The billboard has existed in one form or another since the 1930s. In 2009, because of the level of deterioration, city officials had the billboard covered up to prevent embarrassment when world leaders gathered here for the G-20 summit.

In 2012, according to court papers filed by Lamar, the company began a series of meetings with city officials and civic leaders about billboard upgrades. It then submitted a plan for overhauling the structure, including the electronics, estimating the renovations would take nine months. Lamar said it complied with the city’s requests for additional information about the upgrades and agreed to devote billboard space, when available, to “charitable and civic content.”

Lamar said the city continued to complain about the billboard’s condition but never ruled on the renovation plan. In May 2016, the company placed over the billboard a black and yellow Sprint ad. Citing zoning violations, the city ordered Lamar to take it down and then sued when it didn’t. Lamar filed its own legal challenge against the city. That’s where things stood until Saturday, when Lamar replaced the black-and-yellow vinyl ad with another one in which Sprint boasts of “Connecting the City of Champions.”

Representatives of Lamar and the city should resume talks about a sale or donation of the billboard, something that Mr. Acklin and Mr. Kamin said they would be willing to do. It’s time for the jousting to end and the negotiations to begin. Both parties could emerge victorious.