If Pittsburgh rejects the billboard, it should accept the bill, outdoor advertising firm Lamar Advertising argued yesterday as it appealed a court decision nixing the half-done electronic sign hanging on the Grant Street Transportation Center, Downtown.

After all, the controversial sign got a permit, Stan Geier, Lamar vice president and general manager, said in a news release. "Relying upon that permit, we invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the display in early 2008," he said. If the city doesn't want the sign, "we are entitled to recover our expenses from the city."

Thus continues the saga that roiled city government last year. In short: A zoning administrator allowed a 19-by-58-foot billboard without needed hearings or votes, a majority of City Council members challenged it, a settlement started a public process, a top development official resigned and won a settlement, the Zoning Board of Adjustment rejected the sign, and Common Pleas Judge Joseph James agreed.

Now the matter goes to the Commonwealth Court, where it could spend a year. Or it could settle.

"We have been damaged by the city's decision to change its mind," Mr. Geier said in the release. "We cannot simply let the matter drop."

In an e-mail, he said that because most of the parts of the unique, curved sign can't be reused, "the damages will be in excess of $1 million" if the sign isn't finished. The company appealed Judge James' decision rejecting the sign, but it stressed that it is protecting its right to recover damages.

"If they seek one dollar of the public's money, I will seek an investigation from higher authorities on how this was done," said Councilman William Peduto, one of five members who appealed the sign permit. He said a state probe could focus on how the Pittsburgh Parking Authority, which owns the sign site, allowed the billboard without any competitive bids.

Lamar is "demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars of the public's money for something they should never have been allowed to do," Mr. Peduto said. "Council has the ability to investigate, and to subpoena present and past employees," if no higher authority will step in, he said.

Councilman Patrick Dowd, another of the members who appealed the original permit, and the lone member who forged the settlement that led to the zoning board decision, said he was "not surprised that they are seeking damages to protect their investment."

But the blame for their losses lies with the company and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, he said. Lamar was "probably given bad information by leaders of the city at the time that decision was made" to post the sign without going through a public process.

He challenged Mr. Ravenstahl in the May Democratic primary, raising the billboard as a key issue.

"Were the city to pay Lamar damages, that would be the price of mismanagement and poor leadership," he said.

City Solicitor George Specter said he would not comment on ongoing litigation.