Unneeded registries

As a rental property owner in the City of Pittsburgh, I pay taxes based on bills I receive from the city. When I purchased the properties the deed was recorded in my name at my address.

I was required to have occupancy permits for the number of tenants by the Permits, Licenses and Inspections department of the city. When performing upgrades to my properties I was required to have a city plumbing inspector, building inspector, and yet a third inspector for the electrical systems — all of whom were aware of my name and address of the properties.

In response to your editorial, “Pittsburgh must have the power to create a rental registry” (Apr. 12), I must ask: How many registries does the city need? The city already inspects, analyzes and regulates rental properties.

Rather than creating another layer of red tape with a registry, the costs of which will be borne by the landlord, the city needs to get its act together and take better stock of the rental market through the numerous sources already at its disposal.

Yes, out-of-state LLC’s and corporations are buying cheap Pittsburgh properties in need of repair. They are filling a vacuum created by the city which has failed to take care of, or sell, the hundreds of dilapidated properties it owns.

These dilapidated properties could provide wealth-building opportunities for first-time buyers in the city. They could also provide much needed shelter for the homeless which the city doesn’t seem capable of addressing.

Instead of requiring a redundant registry for rental property owners, the city needs to do a better job of managing its own real estate.

Guy THOMAS B. MCCARTNEY

Highland Park