In this case, I would think residence is irrelevant, considering this person is paying property tax that pays for this school and land records can easily prove this.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The thing they're trying to combat is people claiming residency in a better school district. We had a case here where the parents were driving their kid to grandma's so the kid could go to school there instead of in a bad local school.

▲

john_strinlai 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

she owns and pays for a home in the school district. the school knows and admits this.

if she didnt, i would (sort of) agree. but she does.

	▲	ceejayoz 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. I'm saying there's a legit interest in combatting a real challenge. This is a false positive and a stupid bureaucratic hole of the school's own creation.

▲

StingyJelly 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So what? Grandma's paying taxes there.

Real solution is to loosen regulations on private schools and provide equivalent tax return to parents who choose private over public.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> So what? Grandma's paying taxes there.

But the parents aren't, and grandma's tax contribution may have already gone towards funding the parents. The system's structured with local revenue; letting people change their locality too easily messes with that structure a lot.

(I pay, for example, about $3k in school taxes annually, but I have two kids in a $21k/year district. If they have kids, I may be still paying for their education, let alone the grandkids.)

> Real solution is to loosen regulations on private schools and provide equivalent tax return to parents who choose private over public.

Yeah, privatization always results in better results and zero scammy abuses of the system.

(One hopes the /s can go unsaid.)

▲

nonameiguess 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Feels like now we're getting into "falsehoods programmers believe about family." My cousin effectively lived with us when he was a kid and went to school in the district for our house, not his mom's. My niece was raised jointly by my sister and my parents, but my sister's housing situation was so unstable she lived with my parents more often, and went to school in that district as well. What exactly do they even do if a parent has no stable housing at all? Make the kid change schools every month?

	▲	ceejayoz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Feels like now we're getting into "falsehoods programmers believe about family." Sure, but that's why a level of human intervention with a touch of empathy is required for cases like this one and the unhoused example.

▲

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The way you've written this is a bit misleading. I can own undeveloped property in a school district and pay the property taxes for it, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to someone owning a home in that district. The residency requirement would mean you're paying enough property tax since you've clearly developed the property if you are living there.

▲

lotsofpulp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Then the government should advertise an explicit minimum amount of tax paid annually in order to register for the school, or switch property tax to land value tax only.

	▲	dylan604 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The residency requirement is that minimum. It's not a minimum in monetary limits. It's a minimum that you have to actually live there. The fact you are living there means you are paying a higher tax amount than for an undeveloped lot. There's a difference on having a house on a lot vs just some field. You have some skin in the game as they say compared to just owning land while living somewhere else completely.