Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was actually 7.5% at Duke Ellington, so the "10%" is exaggerated by 1/3

Oh, well that makes it all better then.

just more evidence of hyperbole and poor journalism, but I'd hesitate to call this "journalism"

One might think that you wish this series of reports would just go away.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe "The Plan" all along was for Old DC to:
1. pump up property prices
2. cash out and take their money to MD
3. take advantage of the DC city services with a much wealthier tax base
4. let crime rise
5. property prices crash as white people flee the city again
6. buy at low prices

If so, bravo. Y'all are playing the long game. We are currently at the beginnings of Stage 4.

You are assuming that "Old DC" (Black DC) owned their homes and would therefore benefit from "cashing out." That's a big leap given Black homeownership rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares if they're city employees? I barely avoided two potholes today just getting my kids to camp. They generally do a horrible job of doing their job. If they don't live in the District, then they A ) go to the back of the line for school and then B ) pay full freight tuition. Why is this even a question

?

Of course they can go to the back of the line of schools. That's not a question. But TDC is conflating the issues here. Residency fraud is a problem, but municipal employees living outside the city is not. Why do we care how many district employees live outside DC. As PP mentioned, there's no law against it. Other cities do require employees to live in the city, but DC does not. TDC is trying to get folks upset by shifting the goalposts.

The Daily Caller is saying that it does matter in this context because the MD residents who work in DC are the ones in the supervisory positions and are allowing this unwritten policy that allows MD residents to take advantage of the DC school system. Whether that's true or not is another thing. But their anecdotal evidence of the woman who works for the Chancellor rigging the system is pretty damning.

If that's their case then they need to make it. Who makes the decision on this? Where does that person live? Who is under that person? Where do they live? By making this about municipal employees writ large, TDC is lumping the decision-makers in with the bus drivers, janitors, and clerks. TDC has no problem following a child home and confronting their parents in their driveway - how about doing some research and making their case instead of relying on the reader to assume intent?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was actually 7.5% at Duke Ellington, so the "10%" is exaggerated by 1/3

Oh, well that makes it all better then.

just more evidence of hyperbole and poor journalism, but I'd hesitate to call this "journalism"

One of the installments quoted DCUM. It is not journalism.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe "The Plan" all along was for Old DC to:
1. pump up property prices
2. cash out and take their money to MD
3. take advantage of the DC city services with a much wealthier tax base
4. let crime rise
5. property prices crash as white people flee the city again
6. buy at low prices

If so, bravo. Y'all are playing the long game. We are currently at the beginnings of Stage 4.

I've lived in this area a long time - and this sounds about right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was actually 7.5% at Duke Ellington, so the "10%" is exaggerated by 1/3

Oh, well that makes it all better then.

just more evidence of hyperbole and poor journalism, but I'd hesitate to call this "journalism"

Of course you do. Because you live in PG County and are freeloading in DC. The rest of us are ready to put you and your freeloading children in jail.

Maybe "The Plan" all along was for Old DC to:
1. pump up property prices
2. cash out and take their money to MD
3. take advantage of the DC city services with a much wealthier tax base
4. let crime rise
5. property prices crash as white people flee the city again
6. buy at low prices

If so, bravo. Y'all are playing the long game. We are currently at the beginnings of Stage 4.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:38 fraudulent students out of 111 referrals is pretty damn high, and even then you have to consider that most of the referrals came from tips rather than the City's own attempts to keep the money secure. Surely if the City digs deeper we would see many more cases.

The DC Audit report data shows there's a big problem here.

+1

And the residency of the workers shows that there is zero incentive to root this out.

Many cities around the country require employees to live in city. DC should be able to collect tax on any worker in metro area

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some cities do require their employees to live in the city, like Chicago.

In New York City you can live outside the City, but you must pay City taxes. That's how it should be here in DC.

The Home Rule Act - written and passed by Congress - does not allow DC to levy taxes on non-District residents who work within the bounds of DC. We are the only place in the country not allowed to levy income taxes. It's really good for DC's athletes, who are allowed to play here but then keep their off-season residency in no-tax jurisdictions, such as Florida and Texas.

It's also good for Congressmen and Senators.

The DC government can't levy an income tax on the Federal government and Congress always has the power to carve themselves out. Plus, I don't think Congressmen or Senators are in the District enough per year to even establish residency (183 days/year).
There was no good reason for the Home Rule Act to exclude collecting of taxes from workers in the city. It was done purposely to "starve" DC of funding when it was still a heavily African-American city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it was actually 7.5% at Duke Ellington, so the "10%" is exaggerated by 1/3

Oh, well that makes it all better then.

just more evidence of hyperbole and poor journalism, but I'd hesitate to call this "journalism"

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares if they're city employees? I barely avoided two potholes today just getting my kids to camp. They generally do a horrible job of doing their job. If they don't live in the District, then they A ) go to the back of the line for school and then B ) pay full freight tuition. Why is this even a question

?

Of course they can go to the back of the line of schools. That's not a question. But TDC is conflating the issues here. Residency fraud is a problem, but municipal employees living outside the city is not. Why do we care how many district employees live outside DC. As PP mentioned, there's no law against it. Other cities do require employees to live in the city, but DC does not. TDC is trying to get folks upset by shifting the goalposts.

The Daily Caller is saying that it does matter in this context because the MD residents who work in DC are the ones in the supervisory positions and are allowing this unwritten policy that allows MD residents to take advantage of the DC school system. Whether that's true or not is another thing. But their anecdotal evidence of the woman who works for the Chancellor rigging the system is pretty damning.

Anonymous wrote:

Who cares if they're city employees? I barely avoided two potholes today just getting my kids to camp. They generally do a horrible job of doing their job. If they don't live in the District, then they A ) go to the back of the line for school and then B ) pay full freight tuition. Why is this even a question

?

Of course they can go to the back of the line of schools. That's not a question. But TDC is conflating the issues here. Residency fraud is a problem, but municipal employees living outside the city is not. Why do we care how many district employees live outside DC. As PP mentioned, there's no law against it. Other cities do require employees to live in the city, but DC does not. TDC is trying to get folks upset by shifting the goalposts.

I believe the Daily Caller's point (albeit poorly made) is that the huge mass of city workers from PGC is one reason so much boundary fraud is tolerated.

Who cares if they're city employees? I barely avoided two potholes today just getting my kids to camp. They generally do a horrible job of doing their job. If they don't live in the District, then they A ) go to the back of the line for school and then B ) pay full freight tuition. Why is this even a question

?

Of course they can go to the back of the line of schools. That's not a question. But TDC is conflating the issues here. Residency fraud is a problem, but municipal employees living outside the city is not. Why do we care how many district employees live outside DC. As PP mentioned, there's no law against it. Other cities do require employees to live in the city, but DC does not. TDC is trying to get folks upset by shifting the goalposts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some cities do require their employees to live in the city, like Chicago.

In New York City you can live outside the City, but you must pay City taxes. That's how it should be here in DC.

The Home Rule Act - written and passed by Congress - does not allow DC to levy taxes on non-District residents who work within the bounds of DC. We are the only place in the country not allowed to levy income taxes. It's really good for DC's athletes, who are allowed to play here but then keep their off-season residency in no-tax jurisdictions, such as Florida and Texas.

It's also good for Congressmen and Senators.