AG Racine Sues Two MPD Officer for Residency Fraud

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should all federal workers receive subsidized housing in DC?

The proper analogy would be should federal workers receive subsidized house in the United States. If large numbers of federal employees were forced to live in Canada, Mexico, or Haiti in order to afford housing, that might be a reasonable proposal.

Disagree. How can you say living in Rockville is far away and a burden. Even military who receiving separate housing benefits frequently choose not live within DC. I do not think it is an undue to commute, or choose to live in an apartment. We all make choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This case is different because the family DID own a home in the District, which means they could afford to live here.

They may have wanted a larger home, so off to VA and MD they went.

a two bedroom apartment for a family of five? doesn't sound like they could afford to live here,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is different because the family DID own a home in the District, which means they could afford to live here.

They may have wanted a larger home, so off to VA and MD they went.

a two bedroom apartment for a family of five? doesn't sound like they could afford to live here,

I thought they owned a multi-apartment building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should all federal workers receive subsidized housing in DC?

The proper analogy would be should federal workers receive subsidized house in the United States. If large numbers of federal employees were forced to live in Canada, Mexico, or Haiti in order to afford housing, that might be a reasonable proposal.

Disagree. How can you say living in Rockville is far away and a burden. Even military who receiving separate housing benefits frequently choose not live within DC. I do not think it is an undue to commute, or choose to live in an apartment. We all make choices.

NP. This wasn't someone who couldn't afford to live in DC. This was someone who could, who owned property here, and then decided to live elsewhere. I don't have sympathy for any residency cheaters, but this case is worse than most. Plus they were police officers, which makes breaking the law that much worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This case is different because the family DID own a home in the District, which means they could afford to live here.

They may have wanted a larger home, so off to VA and MD they went.

a two bedroom apartment for a family of five? doesn't sound like they could afford to live here,

The point is that they could afford to own here. I'm sure they have been on the force before gentrification, in which the homes in most areas of DC were affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what was the impetus to send their kids to school here? Aren't there plenty of fine schools in the suburbs?

and It's not like the parents were commuting into DC -- they were cops in the suburbs.

A good chunk of them live in PG County, whose school's quality is just as uneven to poor as DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should all federal workers receive subsidized housing in DC?

The proper analogy would be should federal workers receive subsidized house in the United States. If large numbers of federal employees were forced to live in Canada, Mexico, or Haiti in order to afford housing, that might be a reasonable proposal.

Disagree. How can you say living in Rockville is far away and a burden. Even military who receiving separate housing benefits frequently choose not live within DC. I do not think it is an undue to commute, or choose to live in an apartment. We all make choices.

Well, really the appropriate analogy is the subset of federal employees providing protective services. Not all federal employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No way- they can commute to their jobs and send their children to school like everyone else. There is no excuse for breaking the law.

I'm not saying you don't prosecute violators. I'm suggesting a way to give a certain type of public servant--someone provides a crucial, visible service to the city--a benefit that allows them to become even more involved in DC community life. I love seeing MPD parents in uniform at our school; it makes me feel a little safer, and I have to believe that being personally involved in the community they police makes them better cops.

Giving those public servants access to DCPS at a discounted rate seems like a win-win to me.

There are several programs to help public servants purchase in DC...why do you think so many own rental property in the city??? My former neighbor bought a townhouse next to mine under one of these "teacher/police/firefighter" programs, "lived" in it for about two months and then promptly rented it out. Free money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the TV stations reported on this last night and mentioned that the family sued a tenant for nonpayment of rent in 2007. Which probably helped document that the NE apt couldn't actually be the family's home.

If I had a dollar for every person who told me that we should just buy an income apt IB for Deal while still living in our house EOTP school so our kids could attend. Most thought it was perfectly legal bc one would be paying taxes to the city regardless.

Well, you couldn't be sued for tuition if you're a DC resident. Clearly you could be kicked out of the school, but what other consequence would there be?

I'm not advocating this of course, just curious.

[Anonymous]

You certainly should only be able to use any subsidy on your primary residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the TV stations reported on this last night and mentioned that the family sued a tenant for nonpayment of rent in 2007. Which probably helped document that the NE apt couldn't actually be the family's home.

If I had a dollar for every person who told me that we should just buy an income apt IB for Deal while still living in our house EOTP school so our kids could attend. Most thought it was perfectly legal bc one would be paying taxes to the city regardless.

Well, you couldn't be sued for tuition if you're a DC resident. Clearly you could be kicked out of the school, but what other consequence would there be?

I'm not advocating this of course, just curious.

I think you could be charged triple the tuition you owed in damages, and you could be brought on criminal charges (which DC decided not to do in the case in the Post article).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter was friends with their daughter. She was a very nice child. They did it so that they could be assured of her safety. It is all good to gloat but these are people's lives.

Many of have no clue how many hours a police work or how difficult their hours and child care can be.

Thank you for this. It is important to remember that real people are involved and, in this case, apparently two people whose jobs are to protect the very neighborhoods in which many of our posters live.

I tend to agree.

How about a law providing discounted DCPS tuition to certain types of DC-employed public servants? Police, firefighters, teachers. We want these folks invested in DC beyond their jobs, and many of them can't afford to live in the city where they work.

+1,000. All three of you.

A bill authorizingthis should be retoroactive. It strikes me as really vindictive.

[Anonymous]

It looks like the rules were changed in 2008 but I can not find the new rules published anywhere on a "public" site.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCYQFjABahUKEwjC6oexxIrGAhXNMYwKHdxkADs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsboe.dc.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdc%2Fsites%2Fsboe%2Fpublication%2Fattachments%2FResidency%2520Verification%2520Summary%2520Document.doc&ei=PAN7VcLcHs3jsATcyYHYAw&usg=AFQjCNEXzmrSV7jGt0OGP3WiZetA4C8hPA&bvm=bv.95515949,d.cWc

Does anybody have a link to the new rules on a "public" site?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what was the impetus to send their kids to school here? Aren't there plenty of fine schools in the suburbs?

and It's not like the parents were commuting into DC -- they were cops in the suburbs.

A good chunk of them live in PG County, whose school's quality is just as uneven to poor as DC.

I'm not defending them, but they were Metro PD, so DC cops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the TV stations reported on this last night and mentioned that the family sued a tenant for nonpayment of rent in 2007. Which probably helped document that the NE apt couldn't actually be the family's home.

If I had a dollar for every person who told me that we should just buy an income apt IB for Deal while still living in our house EOTP school so our kids could attend. Most thought it was perfectly legal bc one would be paying taxes to the city regardless.

Well, you couldn't be sued for tuition if you're a DC resident. Clearly you could be kicked out of the school, but what other consequence would there be?

I'm not advocating this of course, just curious.

I think you could be charged triple the tuition you owed in damages, and you could be brought on criminal charges (which DC decided not to do in the case in the Post article).

No, PP brings up a good point. How can they charge a DC resident out of state tuition? Sure, they are breaking boundary assignments (zoned for Burroughs but attend where rental is in Hearst). I know this gets brought up a lot. But now that they seem to be cracking down, wonder how they would prosecute this.