Rent a 2nd place in a better boundary

[Anonymous]

^^ wow, I hope your kids are out of the house today. You are really angry and hateful. Calm down. Deep breaths.

[Anonymous]

14:25/14:45 your vigilante mentality is creepy.

Launching whispering campaigns against fellow parents you've decided to "out" could easily lead to those with legitimately complicated residency situations (e.g. legal separation, divorce, relatives who are not the parents with legal custody, military and diplomatic families with one parent serving abroad) being hurt.

If you want to call the DCPS fraud hotline, your call, but your threats to take make life miserable for others whose motives for enrolling their kid in any particular in-demand, by-right school may or may be suspect are out of line!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:25/14:45 your vigilante mentality is creepy.

Launching whispering campaigns against fellow parents you've decided to "out" could easily lead to those with legitimately complicated residency situations (e.g. legal separation, divorce, relatives who are not the parents with legal custody, military and diplomatic families with one parent serving abroad) being hurt.

If you want to call the DCPS fraud hotline, your call, but your threats to take make life miserable for others whose motives for enrolling their kid in any particular in-demand, by-right school may or may be suspect are out of line!

In every case I know of there was more than enough clarity that there were not "special circumstances". And frankly, when there are, then people aren't told to leave the school. These aren't divorce/grandparent cases, these are people who simply don't live where they said they did when they applied.

If you're not cheating, you have nothing to worry about. If your child spends a lot of time in the home you applied from, you have nothing to worry about. None of the big deals I know of turned out to be legitimate cases, so no one who's playing by the rules needs to worry.

And as much as I understand people thinking I sound angry, I'm really not angry. Not at all. But I am being matter of fact, as I don't think people realize just how much this issue is going to be stepped up (and enforcement stepped up) in the next few years. There is less and less tolerance for the cheating, and I just want to be clear that people such as OP are risking more than they think they are for their kids by choosing to cheat.

[Anonymous]

No, you are angry. And there is something else behind it. Not that you at going to self reflect from DCUM, but this is consuming you too much. And it, not the pretend fraud, is scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really pisses me off. I live in a crappy apartment in a good school district so that my kid can legitimately go there. I haven't read 10 pages of crap and justification, but even if you could get away with this I sure hope you don't. Do you think I wouldn't live more space in a difference part of town???? Of course I would!!! But I decided my kid's education is more important. People like you who want to have their cake and eat it too really get on my nerves. You overcrowd our schools and make our kids suffer because you think you are above the law. Screw you! I hope you get caught and go to jail.

you want to commute across town at rush hour twice a day, really? You made a good choice for your family - not a smaller house but less time in a car.

That was another huge consideration. I hate commuting and take public transportation so it wouldn't be feasible anyway, but I'd rather spend time at home with my kid.

You are either willfully or stupidly missing the PP's point. EVERYONE would rather have both a great school and a short commute. But those of us who play by the rules make trade offs to do it, like less space to be in a better school district. People like YOU think that you are somehow above playing by the rules and unapologetically strategize to have cake and eat it, i.e. have your bigger place and, just because you can afford it, rent a smaller tiny place that you have no intention of living in and then present that as your residence. I have had opportunities to cheat as well (more by knowing people at schools and being offered easy entry) and I have declined, and done things by the book. Mainly because I believe in karma, but also because I believe "live by the sword, die by the sword". If I cheat, then I can't be upset in the least if I or my kid gets cheated.

But people like you think a) you won't get caught, and b) your means justify your ends. Well, they don't. But you may well get away with it if you do this.

Then again... you may well NOT get away with it. I really really hope you get caught, because your matter of fact smugness about just doing it because you can warrants you going through all this trouble, hopefully spending a lot of money on it too, and then getting busted. I feel for your kid though... moral fortitude is clearly missing in some key ways from your family. Hopefully he/she/they can rise above your shortcomings.

I'm the one that said I DIDN'T want to commute or cheat the system, which is why I live in a crappy apartment and send my kid to school in boundary, LEGITIMATELY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, you are angry. And there is something else behind it. Not that you at going to self reflect from DCUM, but this is consuming you too much. And it, not the pretend fraud, is scary.

Well, ok... you still think I'm angry and scary. I am totally and completely ok with that. What I really care about is a good education for my kid, and fair access for all kids as much as possible. Your "internet diagnosis" of my emotion or your reaction to it is irrelevent to me, frankly. It doesn't change a thing. Cheat at your own risk, because if you're outed, you still have no one to blame but yourself. All the other stuff... think whatever you want. And enjoy your "armchair psychiatry", if that's what floats your boat!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really pisses me off. I live in a crappy apartment in a good school district so that my kid can legitimately go there. I haven't read 10 pages of crap and justification, but even if you could get away with this I sure hope you don't. Do you think I wouldn't live more space in a difference part of town???? Of course I would!!! But I decided my kid's education is more important. People like you who want to have their cake and eat it too really get on my nerves. You overcrowd our schools and make our kids suffer because you think you are above the law. Screw you! I hope you get caught and go to jail.

you want to commute across town at rush hour twice a day, really? You made a good choice for your family - not a smaller house but less time in a car.

That was another huge consideration. I hate commuting and take public transportation so it wouldn't be feasible anyway, but I'd rather spend time at home with my kid.

You are either willfully or stupidly missing the PP's point. EVERYONE would rather have both a great school and a short commute. But those of us who play by the rules make trade offs to do it, like less space to be in a better school district. People like YOU think that you are somehow above playing by the rules and unapologetically strategize to have cake and eat it, i.e. have your bigger place and, just because you can afford it, rent a smaller tiny place that you have no intention of living in and then present that as your residence. I have had opportunities to cheat as well (more by knowing people at schools and being offered easy entry) and I have declined, and done things by the book. Mainly because I believe in karma, but also because I believe "live by the sword, die by the sword". If I cheat, then I can't be upset in the least if I or my kid gets cheated.

But people like you think a) you won't get caught, and b) your means justify your ends. Well, they don't. But you may well get away with it if you do this.

Then again... you may well NOT get away with it. I really really hope you get caught, because your matter of fact smugness about just doing it because you can warrants you going through all this trouble, hopefully spending a lot of money on it too, and then getting busted. I feel for your kid though... moral fortitude is clearly missing in some key ways from your family. Hopefully he/she/they can rise above your shortcomings.

I'm the one that said I DIDN'T want to commute or cheat the system, which is why I live in a crappy apartment and send my kid to school in boundary, LEGITIMATELY.

Sorry, my bad, I got "who was speaking" confused. As you can see from my posts, I totally agree with you and applaud everyone who plays by the rules.

[Anonymous]

^^ because your angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ because your angry.

You're funny! I like your persistence though. Enjoy the rest of your day, you big lovable residency cheat!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Twelve pages into the thread not one person has provided a cite to any sort of relevant regulation.

It's like this:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/legal-dream-team-of-coworkers-counsel-woman-on-str,36424/

I think this might be the applicable DCMR (DM Municipal Regulation):

http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/RuleHome.aspx?RuleNumber=5-E2002

(then click on view text)

It basically says that students attend the school in attendance zone where "the applicant resides" (Section 2002.1) . Supplying false information can result in a fine of up to $500 plus referral for potential prosecution (Section 2000.12). So the question is what does it mean to reside, is paying rent enough.


More to the point, since 9:19 is probably not going to bother reading the DCMR:

"2105.1 Except as provided otherwise in this chapter, a student shall be required to attend the school for which the student is eligible which serves the attendance zone established for his or her place of residence, as defined in § 2199.

...

2199 Definitions.

2199.1 Unless the same term or phrase is defined in § 2199.2, the definitions set forth in § 2099 are incorporated in this chapter by reference and shall apply to the terms and phrases used in this chapter.

...

2099 DEFINITIONS

2099.1 ....

Parent - is a person who has custody or control of a student and whose legal relationship to the student is that of natural parent, step-parent, or parent by adoption.

Residence of an adult student - the address where the adult student actually resides.

Residence of a minor student - is defined as one of the following:

(a) The address of the residence of the student’s parent or guardian who has custody or control of the student; or

(b) The address where the student resides with relatives or a non-court appointed guardian or custodian, in the case of a student who does not have a parent or court- appointed guardian residing in the District of Columbia."


So as seen in the definition of residence of an adult student and under general rules of construction, residence means where the person at issue "actually resides" (e.g., the adult student or minor student's custodial parent), so the child must actually reside in the school's attendance zone to be in bound for that school. Did anyone really doubt that this was the law? Are they going to go after someone who owns two places and keeps one totally vacant (e.g., does not sublet it), but uses the address? I doubt it. But I doubt that happens much. BTW, they should go after someone who sublets because then clearly the owner does not and cannot reside there.


[Note that (b) is not a grandparent and auntie loophole -- it is for orphans who have not been formally adopted or who have not been appointed a guardian yet - and even there, the student must actually reside at the address.]

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]
Are they going to go after someone who owns two places and keeps one totally vacant (e.g., does not sublet it), but uses the address? I doubt it. But I doubt that happens much. BTW, they should go after someone who sublets because then clearly the owner does not and cannot reside there.
[/quote]

They should follow suspected cheaters home and send surveillace to monitor that the children are leaving from the correct address in the mornings, as well as touring the properties periodically. Of course residential exemption should be tracked, as well as voter registration, tax returns, drivers licenses, and vehicle registrations. In addition, there should be heightened scrutiny where a family of four claims to live in a studio IB, while owing a 3+ bedroom elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

^ Get a life!

[Anonymous]

18:41, if you are a SAH then you can start a task force. A non creepy one that follows kids home and asks them where their parents are! Then, the 2nd shift can keep vigil outside the house (wink wink) and watch the family clown car style leave the house. But first step is to come up with a group name.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
Are they going to go after someone who owns two places and keeps one totally vacant (e.g., does not sublet it), but uses the address? I doubt it. But I doubt that happens much. BTW, they should go after someone who sublets because then clearly the owner does not and cannot reside there.
[/quote]

They should follow suspected cheaters home and send surveillace to monitor that the children are leaving from the correct address in the mornings, as well as touring the properties periodically. Of course residential exemption should be tracked, as well as voter registration, tax returns, drivers licenses, and vehicle registrations. In addition, there should be heightened scrutiny where a family of four claims to live in a studio IB, while owing a 3+ bedroom elsewhere.[/quote]

I live about 75% of the year in DC and 25% in another state, and I can tell you that there is no universal or simple definition of residence. It varies from state to state, and within a state there are different rules for everything you list: voter registration, tax returns, drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. Also hunting and fishing licenses, estate taxes, marriage and divorce, child custody to name a few. Sometimes you're a resident of two states, sometimes neither. Within other the state where I also reside for certain things residency rules vary from town to town.

From time to time I have to get advice from a lawyer or accountant and they always start off "well, there is no hard and fast rule." And then they usually talk about the chances of getting caught...

[Anonymous]

They should follow suspected cheaters home and send surveillace to monitor that the children are leaving from the correct address in the mornings, as well as touring the properties periodically. Of course residential exemption should be tracked, as well as voter registration, tax returns, drivers licenses, and vehicle registrations. In addition, there should be heightened scrutiny where a family of four claims to live in a studio IB, while owing a 3+ bedroom elsewhere.

NP. This thread has really gone down a rabbit hole.

I keep reading this vitriol and wondering what loss is causing you so much indignation? If you're in-boundary for the school, you're in. How is it that you're robbed by a rent payer at the same school? There's no diminished value to your child's education if someone else chooses to rent or own a second home to attend. There's no damage to your community nor your property. You've not even lost any of your elite address status - obviously a precious commodity.

All this talk about karma and morals is infectious, but in a flesh-eating way when you're talking chasing down and persecuting parents and children who are trying to gain access to a quality education - and paying extra (i.e. more funds than you're paying) to do so. You want to send investigators after them to hopefully send them to a shitty school?

All this moral outrage is a little sick. Seriously, I think you're going to be surprised by karma's target on this one.