Reply to Buying Condo for desirable school WOTP (DC)

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Buying Condo for desirable school WOTP (DC)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I'm going to ruffle even more feathers by offering this too....

Even if you never actually lived in the condo, it's not cheating to use the inbound school.

If you read the regs and the forms, they all only talk about "residence".  The term isn't defined.  There's no reference to "primary residence" or similar -- which is the term you see in most laws where the government wants to clarify you can have only one residence.  When you see the term "residence" in the law, it almost certainly will be read to permit someone to have two residences.  People say it was loosely used so that a kid could go to the IB school of their less than  majority custodial parent in a divorce, etc.  And there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that a kid who sleeps twice a week at dad's house is allowed to go to the IB school at dad's house.  Following that logic, and with no definition to suggest otherwise, there's a decent argument to be made that your residence includes any houses you own and that are available to you, even if you don't actually sleep there.  Have a room set up for your son with some toys? That sounds like a residence.  Not a primary residence -- but again, that's not the requirement.  Have the condo set up so grandma and granddad can use it when they visit for 2 weeks every quarter, and your son spends a few nights with them for each visit?  Same.

It's probably not what DC intended by the use of the word, but if you found yourself in litigation with the city over the issue, the term is vague enough and city litigation is Podunk enough, that the city will lose.  the fact that, as another poster noted, they don't even fight these out of bound condo owners suggests they know it's a losing battle.

All that said, we debated this and it didn't sit well with us because we knew there'd be enough parents who didn't like the idea, that we'd have to keep quiet about it and be encouraging our 5 year old to keep quiet too.  As said, we'd win the litigation -- but I didn't want to send our kid to school where people were calling the cheaters hotline every day.

PS the person above who says it's the same as flying a private jet on taxpayers dime appears to not understand logic.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics