Staying in a cluster due to home-ownership but not living in that cluster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

I would think they're selfish and have no regard for others. I wouldn't hesitate to report them. If everyone did this, our system would break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

I would think they're selfish and have no regard for others. I wouldn't hesitate to report them. If everyone did this, our system would break.

If my neighbors moved away but I saw that their kid still attended our school, I'd assume they had applied for a COSA and it had been approved. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst and reporting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

We pay your salary. Get off DCUM during the work day and get back to work.

[Anonymous]

Heard of people caught doing this where I grew up in PA. Kid immediately gets sent back to their home school regardless of grade & which school it is, plus parents get fined. This was in area where each town is its own school district, dramatic differences between school districts & people playing $20k/year in property taxes aren’t going to put up with someone sending their kid there without paying that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

I don't have a problem with a COSA. I have a problem with using "homeowner" to describe people who own a house they don't live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard of people caught doing this where I grew up in PA. Kid immediately gets sent back to their home school regardless of grade & which school it is, plus parents get fined. This was in area where each town is its own school district, dramatic differences between school districts & people playing $20k/year in property taxes aren’t going to put up with someone sending their kid there without paying that.

OP here. This is hilarious so I need to chime in again. I AM paying property taxes. And will continue to do so, in both clusters.

You guys are so funny, saying the system will break if everyone does what I plan on doing. The reality is that 99.99% of people cannot do that, and the other 0.01% would send their kid to the higher-ranked school. So your screeds are not anchored in reality.


Central Office Poster, thank you for chiming in. I will ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

We pay your salary. Get off DCUM during the work day and get back to work.

Lol,nah. Thanks for my salary though. I'll continue to do whatever I please during my workday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

I don't have a problem with a COSA. I have a problem with using "homeowner" to describe people who own a house they don't live in.

Then get a better life? I actually feel sad for you. Being this pathetic must suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

I don't have a problem with a COSA. I have a problem with using "homeowner" to describe people who own a house they don't live in.

I bet you’re fun at parties.