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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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,
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.
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.