This editorial is right on the mark when it comes to the issue. As an east-side resident I plan to vote NO on the Jordan District split. The Legislature has left too many unanswered questions and I fear the upcoming sessions will provide us with even more questions. This is one cliff I'm not prepared to jump off. Ultimately, it is NOT in the best interest of the most important stakeholders -- students!

I disagree with this article. The main question that comes to mind is why should the east side be required to pay for the growth on the westside? The families on the west side should pay more for school services when they have the majority of the children. It is called accountability and paying your fair share. The argument that those on the west side should be able to vote on this issue is bogus.

It seems to me that the Legisture has a "Bully" problem that is bigger than the problem at our schools.
The "split" also shows how the legislature is bullied by the Utah Education Department. We have long needed all the taxes leved for education in one pot. The fancy accounting of education dollars is no more than a carnival "shell game" trick.
Utah has the lowest per pupil if you don't count all taxes.
Can we all now see that students in rich areas have more tax dollars to spend for a student than the poor rural areas? If all taxes were in the same pot, each student would get the same "per puple" and all would benefit.
Other states have this in place, including Texas, where my children experienced a wonderful education system. In Texas it did not happen without a battle with the Teachers Union crying "Robinhood Plan".
We need less administrators paid at top dollar,less money spend on duplication of services, and more
money for teacher salaries and smaller class sizes.
Perhaps the Legisature, Teachers and News Sources should unravel the complicated formulal of education dollars. We have elected officals to do the best for All citizens!

It's too bad the (incorrect) stereotypes of East/West are promoted by pieces like this. Most of the stated issues, simply do not apply! Literary integrity should demand some fact checking.
The Legistlature did find an answer, it's just Herriman and some others (that happen to represent a minority) don't like. That DOESN'T make it wrong.
How can the remaining west side Jordan district have a "huge tax burden" when the facts are that they will be equal to Alpine, Davis, and Weber districts in Tax Base per student and AHEAD of 32 other districts in Utah? They'll also still be the fourth largest district in the state! If, as the article claims, this is unfair, then most of the state's other districts should be clammoring MUCH louder.
The West side is NOT "poorer", there is a $700 difference in median income between the two sides of Jordan on income of over $60,000 per household!
The new EAST district will have a more homes in poverty, and more non-English speaking households.
The SLCounty Council tried to take upon themselves more authority that they had, thus the special session just put their role into perspective.

Facts would be nice in editorial pieces...

So you're fine with your student's needs being secondary to those on the west? I guess that's within your right.

Change can be good or bad - what often makes the difference is how much effort you're willing to put in to make it work. You can certainly vote based on laziness, but I try to have a more optimistic outlook on things.

To KJ - Fine, please repay the west-siders the amount of taxes west-siders paid to build east-side schools over the past several decades.
Your assertion is absurd. Isn't the objective to provide an education to all students, regardless where they live? Shouldn't the cost of public education for ALL children be equally spread among ALL residents? Elitism and divisiveness should have no place at the table.

What east side residents seem to forget is that they may sidestep construction on the west side with a vote to split the district, but they also accept full responsibility for all the overhead costs associated with their below capacity school enrollments. The fixed costs of these schools will remain but with less taxpayers to share those costs with. Additional costs of administration will also be burdensome to both east and west districts as new superintendency, business and curriculum offices will need to be staffed and paid for by both districts. This is simply the creation of more government overhead that all taxpayers will end up paying for.

Finally, why does the east side get to vote to unseat the west side board of education members? Draper can not unseat a Sandy Councilmember. But with splitting the district, the judge says its okay for voters outside of the voting district to unseat another voting districts representatives?

Too many unanswered questions and too much me me me thinking happening. I will be voting not to split. Remember, the feasibility study only says its feasible, it doesn't say its wise.

All of you who disagree with this article either obviously live on the east side of your communities, or do not live in the Salt Lake Valley!!!! East/West Bias has ALWAYS been an issue in the SLValley--and other counties!!! As someone who grew up on the West side--the real issue is this: the east side residents should HAVE to help support the west side kids, because before now in Jordan and Granite districts, the WEST side has already been supporting the HUGE growth on the EAST side that took place in the 80's and 90's. Ever heard of a little mine called Kennecott, which is on the WEST side of the Valley? What kind of taxes do you think they pay? East/West side discrimination is RAMPANT in these valleys--yes, RAMPANT. It is obvious that what is going on here is legislative support of such discrimination. I personally find ALL the east side residents who support such confounded lies as selfish and stuck up. Also, the reason why the west side would get the brunt of the tax burden would be because of BONDS!!!! So, before you voice your opinion, why don't you figure out what is really happening!!!

Kennecott pays no local property tax. They haven't since the early 70s. Jordan is issuing $193 million in new bonds for 20 new schools. ALL those schools are on the west side, yet the east will pay 57% of that debt regardless of what happens. How discriminating is that? So, East/West bias, your "they're-out-to-get-me" ramblings seem hollow.
BYme - the west falls far short in total investment in fixed assets in the district. Keeping Jordan intact will not equalize that. You should join the east-side legislators that will try for state-wide equalization this next session. It outght to happen, but selfishness on the part of SL City, and SL County, and Park City (who will pay the brunt) could kill it.
Fixed Costs: your point is salient - costs (and taxable value) per student go up in the east, and fall in the west (and about to the same degree)
Your argument about "unseating" board members is false. Redistricting may have to occur and new members added from the appropriate area, but this actually increases representation for all. Furthermore, Jordan Board members' terms end a mere two weeks after the new district would take over.

In response to BYme Biases - Been there, done that. The 2007 Special Session was supposedly called with a primary intent to address equalization. Those grand east side legislators managed to make sure it didn't happen, while expediating the process for the Jordan District split. Yes, I'll be up at the Capitol next General Session trying to make equalization a reality. I'll look real hard for enough east-side legislators with clout enough to make it happen. I agree with you that selfish interests will likely kill any meaningful proposals towards that end.

I was at the special session of the legislature, and the Interim meetings that addressed the equalization issue prior to the special session. The legislators did their best to do as much prepwork as possible before the special session, but the equalization bill and the three separate options on how to implement it (SL County only, by county, and state-wide) were too complicated to explain, debate and address in a one-day special session.

It was a variety of legislators (not just East-side ones as BYme states) who held-up the process, and the fact that there wasn't enough daylight left after the other three bills were decided upon. If the West-side legislators hadn't held up the other two education bills by trying to insert self--serving language that had nothing to do with either of those bills, there would have been more time to devote to the equalization bill.

The bottom line is that more time was needed to come to consensus, and I am hopeful that it will happen in January. Maybe I'll see you there BYme:-)