Renters and schools (Boston, Cambridge, Newton: apartment, renter, mortgage) - Massachusetts (MA) - City-Data Forum

3cents · 03-20-2014, 10:45 AM

As far as I know, children of renters get to attend the same school as children of home owners. Is this meant to be a loophole? It seems easy then to just pay about $20K in rent per year, if you don't have or don't wish to spend the cash to buy a house in expensive towns. Also, you don't have to pay property tax. What's your opinion on this?

Shizim · 03-20-2014, 10:58 AM

???

It's not a loophole. You are paying the tax etc via higher rents. $20K wont get you much in nice towns where the schools are great. Also, alot of the better school district towns are primarily SFH that are owner occupied meaning the availability of rental units is low.

Most people who want their kids to attend good schools in good towns are looking to establish themselves in those towns on a more permanent (i.e. ownership) basis.

magicshark · 03-20-2014, 11:11 AM

Gee maybe you dont mean to come off this way but it sounds very elitist of you. Children, all children, deserve the best education they can get. Would you, what make renters pay tution, send their kids to a subpar district based on the parent 's financials? Not sure what you propose.
Either way the above poster is right. When you pay rent you pay taxes. The landlord doesn't put your rent into a separate account and then pay property tax out of their pocket.

timberline742 · 03-20-2014, 11:14 AM

The renters pay property tax through their rents. Simple. I'm sure my landlord isn't paying the property taxes out of the goodness of his heart and not passing it along to me.

Parsec · 03-20-2014, 11:23 AM

I agree with all the other replies. I don't see what you mean by "loophole." Rent generally covers the owner's mortgage, property tax, maintenance plus some profit (hopefully). For example in my town of Sudbury you typically only see rentals of older homes on main roads for $3000-3500/month. My mortgage is $2700/mo for a much larger house because I put down a lot of money. You can either rent a home for $3000/mo with no down payment or buy the same home for a lot less per month, but you need to put down a couple hundred grand.

MikePRU · 03-20-2014, 11:28 AM

Technically speaking, children are allowed to attend the public schools in the town (or region in the case of a regional school system) where they can prove residence.

I'm not sure if this is what 3cents was getting at but the owner and renter of the same house cannot both send their children to the local school system based on the use of that property's address. Technically, only the family that resides at the address can make use of the school system. Some towns like Lexington are very strict about proving residency in order to enroll children in the school system.

So, I guess you could say the owner of the property gives up access to the school system for their own children when they decided to rent the property.

I think this is very fair as the renters indirectly pay the property taxes which are incorporated in their rent payment.

mmyk72 · 03-20-2014, 11:34 AM

20000/12 = 1666 a month....In the towns with top schools, that's at the low end of the rental market. I think you may find a pretty small 1 bedroom.

If you are saying a family (mom & dad or single parent) who can't afford to buy a house in say Weston, Wellesley, etc. would rent a little apt so their little ones can go to the school... I'm not surprised if this is happening to a small degree.

But an apt that small is probably too cramped for a family to live in, especially if there are more than 1 kid. So if you imply that someone can rent a cheap place in the desirable town just to secure an address, but continue to live where they are.... a little unlikely.

Logic is that if a family already pays mortgage for their own house, coming up with an extra 1666 a month for that extra apt isn't easy. If they were to do that, they might as well just sell or rent out their own house and rent an apt that properly accommodates the family in that desirable town. This means they will pay the high rent inherent to the desirable town and not doing anything fishy because that rent will go into paying for Property taxes by the LL.

3cents · 03-20-2014, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikePRU

the owner and renter of the same house cannot both send their children to the local school system based on the use of that property's address.

Thanks ,Mike. I didn't know this. So to clarify: what if it is a SFH and the owner rented out a portion of the house? Then only one of them (owner or renter) gets to send their kids to the local school? since they share the same address.

I know someone who bought in Cambridge. Years later, his kids are of school age. So he rented out his Cambridge property, and in turn rented in a convenient, easy access, suburb with great schools. I do not know how much he pays in rent. If I was renting, I wouldn't pay $3000 to rent an entire property. I would try to look for townhouses or multi-families. But of course, that's just my subjective opinion.

I know I would probably get flamed, etc. for wording my post the way I worded it. I guess my question is, why isn't more of us doing things this way? Many are trying to do a balancing act between housing budget vs location. For instance: buy in a good school district but suffer a bad commute, or buy with a good commute but in a district with not so great schools.

Parsec · 03-20-2014, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmyk72

Logic is that if a family already pays mortgage for their own house, coming up with an extra 1666 a month for that extra apt isn't easy. If they were to do that, they might as well just sell or rent out their own house and rent an apt that properly accommodates the family in that desirable town. This means they will pay the high rent inherent to the desirable town and not doing anything fishy because that rent will go into paying for Property taxes by the LL.

I was thinking the OP's original post didn't make any sense considering the knowledgeable comments he's made in the past. I think you're right - he meant to ask if a family who lives in Waltham for example can rent a 1BR apartment in Newton for $20k/year and send their 3 kids to Newton schools. $20k/year for 3 kids (or even 2 kids) would be a bargain for a Waltham family to upgrade to Newton schools. If that's what he is asking, then the answer is no - it's illegal. In the aforementioned hypothetical situation, the whole family has to physically live in that 1BR apartment to send the kids to Newton schools.

That's not to say this doesn't happen all the time though. Plenty of families do this in the Boston area. Often times there will be a a group of 3 related families. 1 family will buy a house in Newton and the other 2 will live in nearby Waltham (or Arlington/Medford, Woburn/Winchester, etc..). Then all the families will register their kids in the better school district. It works well when all the cousins are staggered in age.

MikePRU · 03-20-2014, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3cents

Thanks ,Mike. I didn't know this. So to clarify: what if it is a SFH and the owner rented out a portion of the house? Then only one of them (owner or renter) gets to send their kids to the local school? since they share the same address.

The key issue is: where do you claim residence? It doesn't matter if you own or rent. It only matters where you claim residency.