"I think [the legal maneuvering] is a bunch of hooey, H-O-O-E-Y," she added.

A blue-ribbon panel, appointed by the council in 1989, had originally recommended that billboards be banned. The council approved the ordinance in 1991, 5-4, with the stated goals of enhancing the city's aesthetic appeal and reducing visual pollution.

But building owners may face a loss in rental fees under the ordinance. Nickinello refused to enumerate how much Ackerly charges in rent, but said the banning of billboards "would be a financial drain on the city of Cambridge."

Triantafillou said she didn't think the fate of the profits of landlords was "the appropriate question to be asking" in the debate over the billboards.

"A house of prostitution generates economic gains but it comes at the expense of the community," she said.

Opponents of the billboards contend that the signs incur structural damage on the buildings they adorn. Architects have attributed the deterioration of the Wursthaus building in Harvard Square partially to the stress from the billboard atop it.

In the four years since the ordinance was passed, Ackerly has placed non commercial messages on billboards in Cambridge and other cities. Nickinello says his free speech will be violated it the signs, which display uplifting quotes from such notables as Shakespeare and Einstein, are taken down.