Reader comments
Utah school hoping to hang onto its Rockwell

"Technically" EVERYTHING in the district belongs to the district. The radical view that some want to take saying that the new district must now pay what will be left of JSD for every asset within the new district's boundaries while giving those in the new district NO credit for the vast majority of funds used to buy EVERYTHING in the entire district is simply not right!
The Draper principal and kids at the time bought it, and it should stay. Case Closed. Should it be valued as an asset? Of course. Should any consideration of moving it it be given. Of course not.
Melinda Colton ought to quit crying over spilt milk and work towards the making sure the transition goes well rather than spewing our alarmist statements that only add fuel to a fire that should be put out, not fed. Of course, that's only if her interest is the kids and their education and not just her own job.

Like a divorse you have to split the assesets, but no problem, simply shift half of its value($75,000) to the West side district. This is a lot to do about nothing.

We didn't get to vote on the split and YOU don't get to say where the assets go. Bottom line, it's up to Jordan School District, i.e., the WESTSIDE's District, to decide what happens to the picture. Personally, I think the picture would look pretty nice in my son's brand new elementary school in South Jordan.

There should be no question as to who it belongs to. The greedy east-siders will just have to let that money go.

I'm no historian but I dont think the depression was still going in 1951? I hope that teacher doesnt teach history.

I'm on the West side, and while I resent that I didn't have a vote in the split, I would feel terrible if that marvelous painting was sold for money or sent somewhere else. In a divorce, you don't split assests you took into the marriage that were yours prior to the marriage. This painting is like that. A woman wouldn't be expected to sell a painting her parents bought her personally, even if she was married when they bought it for her, in order to "split" assets and I don't think the school district should be working that way either. This painting has historical signifigance only for Draper and should stay and the same goes for ALL art that was paid for directly from a particular school's funds and NOT the districts!

Let the district sell the painting on ebay and donate the money to a private school that helps disadvantaged children.

As I understand this it was not like a divorce where things might be split 50/50 but it is more like the spouse that packs up and leaves and lets the other fend for itself.

From my experience all divorces are not 50/50 anyway. It seems like those who have decided to leave the District should consider themselves lucky that they are not required to even buy the buildings for THEIR NEW district.

It seems like that is how it often is in business ... an employee decides he/she doesn't want to be involved with a company any more, do you think that in most cases he/she could even get by with even taking his office chair.

I don't live in that area at all and not involved, so those are just an "outsiders" thoughts.

I can't beleive the selfishness in west-side commentators in this thread. Now they want to steal a painting from Draper kids!
Comments about east side taxpayers buying their own building back? Come on!!! - as if the east side hasn't spent a single dime on those facilities. Fact is they east side has paid for almost 2/3s of all the buildings on the west side as well.
A divorce?!? Only the most negative, pessimistic, and obstructionist paradigm seems to work for them.