owning home but renting elsewhere for school system (Boston, Belmont: real estate, apartments)

[vs123]

Is it ok to own a home in one city and rent in another city that has better schools to send your kids to the city you are renting in (for the better schools)? This is assuming pick up and drop off are not an issue.

[Amontillado]

If you become a genuine resident in City B, then sure. Actually, you could simply let your children live there and not move in yourself, but the children would have to have their main residence there, and you'd be in trouble for child neglect if you didn't provide for their care. (I guess Eloise living at the Plaza with her Nanny was OK.)

If you mean, can I send my kids to City B's schools if I own property there, then no.

[vs123]

Originally Posted by Amontillado

If you become a genuine resident in City B, then sure. Actually, you could simply let your children live there and not move in yourself, but the children would have to have their main residence there, and you'd be in trouble for child neglect if you didn't provide for their care. (I guess Eloise living at the Plaza with her Nanny was OK.)

If you mean, can I send my kids to City B's schools if I own property there, then no.

This doesn't quite answer my question at hand. I won't be owning property in city B (great schools) as I already own property in city A (poorer schools). I only want a rental unit in city B, pay city B town taxes, and send my kids to one of the city B schools. The children would be residing in the city A home. I would just be paying rent for a unit in city B for its schools. Is this ok?

How long does it take to become a genuine resident of a town if renting? A year?

[Amontillado]

If you move into a rented apartment, you're a resident from day 1. But you have to be a genuine resident, not just someone who's living elsewhere and making an occasional visit. You might get away with it--it depends how many people are trying it and how much the city cares about catching the cheats. But you'd be breaking the law, and you could be sued and/or prosecuted. It doesn't matter where you own or rent real estate, what matters is where your children live. If they live in A and you like B's schools better, tough luck. That's why homes in places with good schools cost the big bucks.

I've heard of people sending their children to an out-of-town school and paying tuition for them as though it were a private school, but that's very rare.

[xo_kizzy_xo]

What the OP is describing is what people have done in the past to either get their kids into one of Boston's exam schools or to keep them enrolled in them while living elsewhere. It might work for a short time but don't be surprised if you suddenly get a certified letter/phone call/actual visit asking you to pull your kid(s) out of the school because there's no evidence that where you're renting is your primary residence.

We had a similar experience in my town (good school system) which borders another town (bad school system). A lot of people from the bad school system town enrolled their kids into my town's system one year...maybe a month or two later there was an investigation as to where the kids from the bad system actually lived. Although some parents did rent in my town to make it look like they actually lived there, it didn't work. All the kids were expelled from my town's system and were told if they wanted to attend, they'd have to pay tuition as an out-of-town resident. I think a couple of them did but most of them walked away.

[Whatsnext75]

Well if you're paying rent for a place I'd think you have a right to send your kids to school in the town in which you're paying rent. It certainly doesn't seem like the best way to go through. Paying a mortgage in one town and then rent in another just so your kids can go to those schools seems like a lot of maintenance.

I have heard of people using a family members address in a town in which they don't live to be able to send their kids to school there. It happened with milton public schools quite a bit when I was growing up there and it's wrong. Anyone know if there are legal ramifications to doing this? People living in Dorchester, mattapan, and roxbury would use a milton address to be able to send their kids to milton schools. The kids that came in from the city in these situations typically behaved terribly and turned the classroom upside down. Poor teachers.

[alidmc]

The requirement is that the child needs to reside in the house. Good school districts have had this happen before and will quickly catch on if a student doesn't actually live where they say they live.
Your plan may work in the short-term, but the school district will find out and expel your children.

[gf2020]

Originally Posted by vs123

Is it ok to own a home in one city and rent in another city that has better schools to send your kids to the city you are renting in (for the better schools)? This is assuming pick up and drop off are not an issue.

Where would the students live?

If they live in the rental then yes, it's perfectly fine.

If they live in the house you own and the rental is just a mailing address, then no, it is not legal.

[Dm84]

How is this cost effective at all given rents in metro Boston? You might as well just pay for private school at that point.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Dm84

How is this cost effective at all given rents in metro Boston? You might as well just pay for private school at that point.

I think this would be very cost effective. You can get $1000-1500 apartments in lots of places with good school systems (I have a friend paying $1300 in Belmont). If you have more than one kid it would be a steal vs a private school.