My story: Accused of Residency Fraud

[Anonymous]

OP - I’m so sorry this happened to you. That really sucks.

[Anonymous]

Yes, as the perspective goes, it is inequitable to enforce a law that has disproportionate effect on an identifiable group of people. Even when the law is written with neutral language. Because the language of the law does not take into account the pressures of historic oppression, among other adverse pressures, on individual groups. So, better to not enforce the law, or do away with the law altogether, given its disproportionate effect.

Mercifully, most communities prefer to focus on the merit of the law rather than on grievances that are external to the law; but the electorate in D.C. as a whole does not see it that way. However, I DO think D.C. is slowly changing, as demonstrated by the AG's effort to bust the residency fraudsters. No way that would have happened 10 years ago.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You all are simply wrong about tolerance for rule-breaking in DC: for example, the City Council passed a law that decriminalizes fare-jumping on the Metro. The Mayor vetoed the measure, but a super-majority will likely override her veto. Their reason? The criminal law is racist because it disproportionately affects african-american persons. Therefore, the perps should be allowed to ride the Metro for free whenever they want. This reasoning is a perfect comparator to the City's historic aversion to prosecuting residency fraud. If you live in the City, this kind of reasoning is just one of the things that you are going to have to accept.

The Council proposal to decriminalize fare-jumping would not result in allowing free Metro rides. Rather, fare-jumping would still be subject to fines, much like parking tickets. How would you feel about the Council moving in the other direction and criminalizing parking and driving violations? Could you imagine being taken to court and becoming part of the criminal justice system because you parked for two hours in a one hour spot? Yet, the cost of that extra hour is not that much different than a short Metro ride. If you are going to criticize a Council bill, you might take the trouble to at least understand it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are simply wrong about tolerance for rule-breaking in DC: for example, the City Council passed a law that decriminalizes fare-jumping on the Metro. The Mayor vetoed the measure, but a super-majority will likely override her veto. Their reason? The criminal law is racist because it disproportionately affects african-american persons. Therefore, the perps should be allowed to ride the Metro for free whenever they want. This reasoning is a perfect comparator to the City's historic aversion to prosecuting residency fraud. If you live in the City, this kind of reasoning is just one of the things that you are going to have to accept.

The Council proposal to decriminalize fare-jumping would not result in allowing free Metro rides. Rather, fare-jumping would still be subject to fines, much like parking tickets. How would you feel about the Council moving in the other direction and criminalizing parking and driving violations? Could you imagine being taken to court and becoming part of the criminal justice system because you parked for two hours in a one hour spot? Yet, the cost of that extra hour is not that much different than a short Metro ride. If you are going to criticize a Council bill, you might take the trouble to at least understand it.

The two types of violations are extremely different. A person must very much must INTEND to jump a Metro fare, in every case this happens. Also, as the Mayor described on Kojo's show (I listened, yo), the facts are that other more serious crimes often accompany fare-jumping. In contrast, a parking violation is...really, are you serious, Jeff? Not comparable, in terms of intent as well as effect on the community of users of the public good. Also, the Mayor mentioned ways to revise the fare-jumping legislation that would create more of a deterrent than simple decriminalization, such as being required to report to court in order to plead your case. But the majority of the DC Council seems unwilling to consider more reasonable legislation than simply erasing if, for political reasons which are subject to debate.

But back to the main point: I think the attitude behind seeking to erase the fare-jumping criminal law is very similar to the attitude among many on this forum to non-prosecution of residency fraud. This attitude is worthy of discussing, imo.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are simply wrong about tolerance for rule-breaking in DC: for example, the City Council passed a law that decriminalizes fare-jumping on the Metro. The Mayor vetoed the measure, but a super-majority will likely override her veto. Their reason? The criminal law is racist because it disproportionately affects african-american persons. Therefore, the perps should be allowed to ride the Metro for free whenever they want. This reasoning is a perfect comparator to the City's historic aversion to prosecuting residency fraud. If you live in the City, this kind of reasoning is just one of the things that you are going to have to accept.

The Council proposal to decriminalize fare-jumping would not result in allowing free Metro rides. Rather, fare-jumping would still be subject to fines, much like parking tickets. How would you feel about the Council moving in the other direction and criminalizing parking and driving violations? Could you imagine being taken to court and becoming part of the criminal justice system because you parked for two hours in a one hour spot? Yet, the cost of that extra hour is not that much different than a short Metro ride. If you are going to criticize a Council bill, you might take the trouble to at least understand it.

The two types of violations are extremely different. A person must very much must INTEND to jump a Metro fare, in every case this happens. Also, as the Mayor described on Kojo's show (I listened, yo), the facts are that other more serious crimes often accompany fare-jumping. In contrast, a parking violation is...really, are you serious, Jeff? Not comparable, in terms of intent as well as effect on the community of users of the public good. Also, the Mayor mentioned ways to revise the fare-jumping legislation that would create more of a deterrent than simple decriminalization, such as being required to report to court in order to plead your case. But the majority of the DC Council seems unwilling to consider more reasonable legislation than simply erasing if, for political reasons which are subject to debate.

But back to the main point: I think the attitude behind seeking to erase the fare-jumping criminal law is very similar to the attitude among many on this forum to non-prosecution of residency fraud. This attitude is worthy of discussing, imo.

In your original post, you said that decriminalizing fare jumping meant allowing free Metro rides. That was simply wrong. You may not consider parking violations to be the equivalent because of intent, but do you agree that overpacking is not free? I think anyone who has received a parking violation in DC -- which is just about everybody (when I bought by first car in DC, I actually got a parking ticket before I got the car home) -- would agree that parking is not free. Your comparison is not valid because you are misrepresenting one of the things you are comparing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current residency fraud enforcement system lends itself too well to abuse.

I'd much rather see OSSE write clearer laws on residency, with DCPS upping enrollment document requirements (with special help for families on government assistance in collecting and producing documents) and better enforcement of the rules. Promoting whispering campaigns and witch hunts is mean-spirited and doesn't work very well. DCPS should study how MoCo, Arlington and Fairfax do things and copy.

Fairfax: "15 attendance officers whose duties include investigating residency fraud."

DCPS: "currently has a single investigator responsible for all residency fraud cases."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/stop-enrollment-fraud-dc-school-officials-are-often-the-ones-committing-it/2018/04/16/03b816c0-3ce7-11e8-8d53-eba0ed2371cc_story.html?utm_term=.e71f3fa6d283

DCPS could easily copy places like Fairfax. It doesn't want to, because city officials are afraid of what they will turn up.

Yes, and no doubt some of their family members, staff and “political supporters” (who live in Maryland) are cheaters themselves.

DC: cFirst world capital....Third World corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, as the perspective goes, it is inequitable to enforce a law that has disproportionate effect on an identifiable group of people. Even when the law is written with neutral language. Because the language of the law does not take into account the pressures of historic oppression, among other adverse pressures, on individual groups. So, better to not enforce the law, or do away with the law altogether, given its disproportionate effect.

Mercifully, most communities prefer to focus on the merit of the law rather than on grievances that are external to the law; but the electorate in D.C. as a whole does not see it that way. However, I DO think D.C. is slowly changing, as demonstrated by the AG's effort to bust the residency fraudsters. No way that would have happened 10 years ago.

Hmmm. When I see an Escalade or Lincoln Navigator with Maryland plates dropping kids off at our NW elementary school daily, I usually don’t “take into account the pressures of historic oppression.” Please forgive me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm calling BS. I have never heard of a kid being told to leave midway through fifth grade, even at high demand schools.

Yep

And I just love the way she ends the post with an eye roll. She is just SO above it all!

It comes with the territory. Maybe she’s a supervisor in the DC government.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the Escalade is used to drive Uber and she rents from HyreCar or Drivetime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are simply wrong about tolerance for rule-breaking in DC: for example, the City Council passed a law that decriminalizes fare-jumping on the Metro. The Mayor vetoed the measure, but a super-majority will likely override her veto. Their reason? The criminal law is racist because it disproportionately affects african-american persons. Therefore, the perps should be allowed to ride the Metro for free whenever they want. This reasoning is a perfect comparator to the City's historic aversion to prosecuting residency fraud. If you live in the City, this kind of reasoning is just one of the things that you are going to have to accept.

The Council proposal to decriminalize fare-jumping would not result in allowing free Metro rides. Rather, fare-jumping would still be subject to fines, much like parking tickets. How would you feel about the Council moving in the other direction and criminalizing parking and driving violations? Could you imagine being taken to court and becoming part of the criminal justice system because you parked for two hours in a one hour spot? Yet, the cost of that extra hour is not that much different than a short Metro ride. If you are going to criticize a Council bill, you might take the trouble to at least understand it.

The two types of violations are extremely different. A person must very much must INTEND to jump a Metro fare, in every case this happens. Also, as the Mayor described on Kojo's show (I listened, yo), the facts are that other more serious crimes often accompany fare-jumping. In contrast, a parking violation is...really, are you serious, Jeff? Not comparable, in terms of intent as well as effect on the community of users of the public good. Also, the Mayor mentioned ways to revise the fare-jumping legislation that would create more of a deterrent than simple decriminalization, such as being required to report to court in order to plead your case. But the majority of the DC Council seems unwilling to consider more reasonable legislation than simply erasing if, for political reasons which are subject to debate.

But back to the main point: I think the attitude behind seeking to erase the fare-jumping criminal law is very similar to the attitude among many on this forum to non-prosecution of residency fraud. This attitude is worthy of discussing, imo.

How are stealing a parking spot and stealing a Metro fare extremely different? There is construction on my street and my street is zoned for resident only parking. The out of state workers park in the resident-only spots every day. They drive their cars, see the signs that prohibit them from parking, and park there anyway. There is clear intent to steal parking there. (And yes, they could pay for parking by getting a construction permit to park vehicles, so the city loses out on money by them not getting that permit). So basically people who disagree with the city council's vote think that it is OK for a Maryland driver to park for free against the law but not for a citizen to ride for free by stealing a metro ride.

And yes, the parking spaces absolutely have value, just like a metro ride. If all the streets in the city had no parking then the parking lanes could be used for wider sidewalks, parklets etc.

[Anonymous]

Residential spaces are less for resident space availability than one may think. Residential parking was only in put in place as a strategy to keep junk cars from being stored on dc streets long term. It also became an additional revenue ( ticket generating ) tool as non ward residents working in other wards and out of state drivers could get hefty fines for being discovered parking near their work/job site in the new “residential” zones.

Comparing fare jumping to parking is a bit misguided; meter maids and tow companies love drivers that park in residential spaces as it makes money for the city.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so maybe this has been addressed. I run an Airbnb in DC. If the OP is actually staying in an Airbnb, then she doesn’t actually meet the residency requirement. Airbnb doesn’t create a lease situation or allow you to vote, get a drivers license, or pay taxes. Assuming that the OPs ex still lives in DC, it would be his address that establishes residency or the OP can claim residency on the basis of her former address and claim homelessness. In all of these scenarios, the OP should have talked to the school to when the change happened. If she had done so, the school would have cleared up the residency issue without even informing her it had been reported.

I actually think the OP was a troll because I work in a similar part of local government. The OP would not have been told what had been reported. They would not have shared with her that someone followed her or that the issue was the rental car. And, they would have explained the Airbnb problem to her. Creative storytelling, but not a real OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, so maybe this has been addressed. I run an Airbnb in DC. If the OP is actually staying in an Airbnb, then she doesn’t actually meet the residency requirement. Airbnb doesn’t create a lease situation or allow you to vote, get a drivers license, or pay taxes. Assuming that the OPs ex still lives in DC, it would be his address that establishes residency or the OP can claim residency on the basis of her former address and claim homelessness. In all of these scenarios, the OP should have talked to the school to when the change happened. If she had done so, the school would have cleared up the residency issue without even informing her it had been reported.

I actually think the OP was a troll because I work in a similar part of local government. The OP would not have been told what had been reported. They would not have shared with her that someone followed her or that the issue was the rental car. And, they would have explained the Airbnb problem to her. Creative storytelling, but not a real OP.

+1.

There's an obvious market for drama queens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, so maybe this has been addressed. I run an Airbnb in DC. If the OP is actually staying in an Airbnb, then she doesn’t actually meet the residency requirement. Airbnb doesn’t create a lease situation or allow you to vote, get a drivers license, or pay taxes. Assuming that the OPs ex still lives in DC, it would be his address that establishes residency or the OP can claim residency on the basis of her former address and claim homelessness. In all of these scenarios, the OP should have talked to the school to when the change happened. If she had done so, the school would have cleared up the residency issue without even informing her it had been reported.

I actually think the OP was a troll because I work in a similar part of local government. The OP would not have been told what had been reported. They would not have shared with her that someone followed her or that the issue was the rental car. And, they would have explained the Airbnb problem to her. Creative storytelling, but not a real OP.

This may be the policy but it is not always followed. When I was reported I was told who reported me and the why. Provided the info needed and kept it moving. Didn’t give it a second thought about what people thought, higher priorities to focus on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, so maybe this has been addressed. I run an Airbnb in DC. If the OP is actually staying in an Airbnb, then she doesn’t actually meet the residency requirement. Airbnb doesn’t create a lease situation or allow you to vote, get a drivers license, or pay taxes. Assuming that the OPs ex still lives in DC, it would be his address that establishes residency or the OP can claim residency on the basis of her former address and claim homelessness. In all of these scenarios, the OP should have talked to the school to when the change happened. If she had done so, the school would have cleared up the residency issue without even informing her it had been reported.

I actually think the OP was a troll because I work in a similar part of local government. The OP would not have been told what had been reported. They would not have shared with her that someone followed her or that the issue was the rental car. And, they would have explained the Airbnb problem to her. Creative storytelling, but not a real OP.

Yes, this is what I posted pages ago...the scenarios folks keep bringing up and asking if this is cheating should be taken to the school? And of course there are always situations that are unusual that fall out of the typical parameters but most schools are used to transient students, especially title I schools. Anyone who works in education in DC schools knows there are a lot of students who live out of the District based on what children let slip; however, difficult to prove if parents provide what seem like legitimate docs. However, does cause implications for kids especially middle and high, less able to attend meetings, after-school activities and engage in school community when don't live in DC but elsewhere.