Reader comments
East and west Jordan District teams finalizing reports

Wondering? | 5:59 a.m. July 31, 2008

According to the article, why should the East side get the West side Bond money? What are the otehr issues? and why are'nt they made public?

the bond money | 6:53 a.m. July 31, 2008

The east district asked for $200 million dollars in cash plus the real estate on the east side, including about 100 acres just east of Jordan Commons.

This split is an expensive fiasco that was voted in by Sandy, Draper and Midvale. They're the only ones who got to vote on it. (Thanks Republican leaders) and they should pay the expense of the split.

Not allowing anyone else to vote and then expecting them to foot the bill is a kind of taxation without representation.

Legislative Stupidity | 8:12 a.m. July 31, 2008

Many of these issues should have been on the table before the vote. But alas, we all know how our legislators work.

Comments continue below

A Patriot | 8:27 a.m. July 31, 2008

Action that affects over 70,000 kids, and only two comments about what is going on? In the famous words from Eagles slead singer Don Henley, "We get the government we deserve".

Oh, by the way, ALPS funding for ant field trips has currently been eliminated in the Jordan School District. Why? Currently blamed on fuel costs, but more likely East side retaliation for a lack of settlement on the issues surrounding the split. What a nice way to provide a quality education for our kids.

Thanks so much Carlene Walker. Please don't get any more bright ideas, we can't afford them.

The Money & The Vote | 8:41 a.m. July 31, 2008

I hope the facts do come out. The west side demands all of the bond money, but demands that the east side pays the bill. If the money belongs to the west side as ï¿½Wondering?ï¿½ implies, then why do they demand that the east pays for this debt. If it is their money then let them take the debt.

Residents of the cities that did not vote on this split are in an uproar. Ask yourself one question: How was my city created? The likelihood is that your city was created by a vote of the people in your area who decided to secede from some other city or from the county. Did the other residents outside of your area get to vote? Nope. Do you argue that the entire county would be better off if we had one local government rather than individual city governments? Nope. Would we be better off to eliminate state governments and allow a more efficient federal government to run the whole program? Nope. Political subdivisions have always been important to our form of government. Most political subdivisions are the result of a vote of the minority to secede from a non-responsive majority.

Chuck | 9:02 a.m. July 31, 2008

There is no reason this could not be settled equitably and fairly, except for greed on the west-side's part. They want to keep picking the pocket of the east.

BTW, a district of 36,000 students is NOT small. The average size of district in the U.S. is less than 3,000!

Tyler | 9:16 a.m. July 31, 2008

Since the East side is paying close to 60 percent of the bonds, they should get some of that money. If the west side is willing to take on 100% of the debt, then they can have all the money. I suspect arbitration will solve this one easily. Of course, it will be a 2-1 vote with the west side appointee sitting out.

split vs. secession? | 9:28 a.m. July 31, 2008

Please tell me if dividing the district was a secession or a split. It was proposed as a secession. Think of it like when BYU stepped away from the WAC. They left-- clean break. They did NOT take any assets with them- they just left and started up the Mountain West conference, with just the monies their schoool and the other schools involved generated. They did not take away from the other schools --They just left. That is a sucession. Now one can easily argue that BYU added alot financialy to the WAC over the years- and therefore has the "right" to take some financial compensation with them- but they SECEEDED- not split- so I would think that we need to clarify the wording of what happened last election. If it was a split then everyone involved (east and west side residents) should have had the vote. If it was a secession then the east side leaves and then petitions the existing Jordan District (what is now the West district)for assets it would like to negotiate for.

Cash | 9:42 a.m. July 31, 2008

Split it proportionately by the number of students in each new district. East side has old schools, west side has to have new offices and plenty of new schools to accomodate growth. Both have needs that the other doesn't want to pay for and shouldn't have to. East side made this mess, now let them deal with it. Both sides will have to tax their own populations to cover expenses, and won't have the other side to blame anymore, they'll have to justify the expenses to their voters. You can project future expenses, but your numbers will almost certainly be off anyway - with real estate going in the tank, population trends may be a little different than projected. Less new housing, or sold over a longer time frame, fewer people moving, etc. Just add up the kids you have today, and divide into the total cash.

RE: the money & the vote | 10:01 a.m. July 31, 2008

Perhaps you should rethink your position.

The former school district served many communities. Taxpayers and voters invested in this former district for generations. All benefited by those contributions. If alternations were desired by some to that former school district, all patrons should have had the right to vote on any changes. Instead, Charlene Walker was able to pass legislation that in effect took that vote away from some. Our elected officials could just have easily considered the proposed changes and then allowed all affected to vote. They may not have gotten their desired result, but then our state and school district would not now be spending a disturbing amount on accessment studies and litigation. And no one is discussing the programs that must now be duplicated that served that population well. I don't have a stake in this, but the precedent scares me. Special interests won this one, and it will cost us all greatly.

Bombadil | 11:00 a.m. July 31, 2008

Here's the Murray school district report: Y'all are going to steal 1,000,000 dollars of our kids money. Here is the Salt Lake School district report: Y'all are going to steal 7,000,000 dollars of our kids money. This whole process is a joke- Folks who do not even have a dog in the fight are being made to pay. If you want to live in herimman, fine- just pay for your own schools like responsible adults.

Independent Voice | 11:07 a.m. July 31, 2008

I used to live in the Jordan District (west side), but now live in the Alpine District, so I don't have a dog in the fight. However, it was clear to me that the Jordan District was bloated, unresponsive, and more concerned with district employees than teachers and schools. That is why I moved. This split will eventually be better for all involved with smaller districts. The fight over the money is obviously a final temper tantrum by the west side still upset about the split. Whatever portion of bond money going to each side should have the same portion of debt associated with the bond attached to that money. Quit the tantrum it will not stop the split and just cost taxpayers more money.

Disgusted | 11:20 a.m. July 31, 2008

The whole thing is a 'stinking mess'. How can it end fairly for all - it wasn't begun fairly for all.

If only there were a way to start all over again and do it in a fair manner for everyone, but that is not possible now.

Our children are the sufferers and will be on both sides for many years to come.

Great example all you so called 'leaders'!!

public's business | 11:34 a.m. July 31, 2008

Come on, Dr. Haws. You say you closed your meeting because "the document has 'potential implications for litigation and arbitration' and therefore falls within the parameters of the Utah Open Meetings Law." One could argue every subject has such 'potential,' and close every meeting. But the fact is this is the public's business. By law, the document has to be released to the public via the school boards today anyway. Also by law, the public had the right to hear the deliberations made in formulating that document. What purpose does it serve to shut out the public? Do the right thing and put an end to the secret meetings.

re: split vs. secession | 11:50 a.m. July 31, 2008

You use a great example, you just come to the wrong conclusion. When BYU stepped away from the WAC they took their assets with them.

1) They where not required to send the WAC yearly payments to compensate for their departure. The new school district will contribute $3.2 million each year to help pay west side expenses.

2) They were not required to leave their assets to the WAC. The WAC did not demand BYU's law school as compensation for the pain caused by BYU's departure. The west side is now demanding assets that belong to the east side and asking for payment for west assets.

3) I don't know this, but I doubt the WAC required BYU to pay off debt that was incurred for the future benefit of the WAC. The west district expects the east to make payments for the next 15 years to pay off the construction of schools that will be built over the next several years. $196 Million dollars spent after the split, and every penny goes to the West side. Even so, the east side is asked make the payment.

We would be happy to get the BYU WAC treatment.

Anonymous | 11:59 a.m. July 31, 2008

riverton and some of the other citys on the west side are much older than draper or even sandy. so many of the the schools in the east side got money from, them just as now all the rich people moving to the east side are payiny for schools on the west side. this is way things have always been. it is a class confrontation, rich vs poor and middle class.

The Cost of Voting | 12:26 p.m. July 31, 2008

I keep hearing people say: "Stick it to those east side bums. They got to vote. They deserve the mess they created"

How much should voting cost?

The west side has demanded 75% of the assets while they educate 57% of the students. How do they justify this? They did not get to vote. They deserve more than their share because this vote was not fair.

They say this is about students not money, yet their demand of 75% of the assets leaves only 25% of what it takes to educate students for the other 43% of the students.

Tough luck for east side students. Their parents got to vote.

What is wrong with the thinking that each student deserves their portion of the assets required to obtain an education. The only thing the west will accept is a proposal that gives each west side student $1.32 in assets and leaves east side students with $.58. Every student deserves their fair share...REGARDLESS OF HOW/IF THEIR PARENTS VOTED.

If you care about the education of children, and not the money, prove it. Make sure that every student gets his/her fair portion of the assets.

Huh? | 12:30 p.m. July 31, 2008

Dear "A Patriot":
What the heck is an "ant" field trip? Are you trying to show your intelligence by using acronyms that few people even understand... or do you just not know how to spell?

Sour Grapes | 2:24 p.m. July 31, 2008

The West side is still trying to stick it to the EAST side. That is why we voted, we are tired of paying your bills. Please let us just pay our own.

to: RE: the money & the vote | 2:57 p.m. July 31, 2008

You have your facts wrong. When an area of the state is growing so fast and out of control, the whole state should participate in funding this. Not just the established area of the district.

Only one plentiful thing | 5:14 p.m. July 31, 2008

The only thing plentiful (as evidenced by these blogs) is that ignorance is king and not too many people really understand a: what happened b: what's going to happen and c: WHY.
#1 - to call the new district creation a "split" or "seccesion" or "divorce" ignores that fact that hundreds of students curretnly in Granite School District are in the new district [how in any of those scenarios do you get to "take from the neighbors?].
#2 - false claims of "class wars" or "rich vs. poor" ignore ALL statistical data collected in the south end of SL County that show quite firmly that median home price, income, and poverty rates are virtually identical on the "east" and the "west" sides.
#3 - the Equalization Bill (Murray, SLC, Granite & the New District all paying money to the remaining JSD) is a SEPERATE issue/bill/law/process. Either you beleive "everyone should pay for their own" or "we should all share" - neither position has anything to do with creating a new, smaller, more responsive district. You can easily be pro for one con for the other pro for both or con for both.

Cash? Credit? or.... | 5:22 p.m. July 31, 2008

Asset division is not so clear cut as some (above) would beleive. Imagine how much more complex it would be if there were a school or other assets in the area of Cottonwood Heights that is moving from the Granite District to the New School District!

A couple of facts to digest:
- of the 2003 Bond the west claims a "right" to, over 97% of that money has been/is being spent on the west side ONLY - despite promises (by JSD) that ~25% would go to the east side. Furthermore, the east side will pay 57%. Paying 57% of >$300 million and only getting ~$10 in return does irk some people
- 57% of the students are on the west side, fine, but to divide assets along those lines ignores that only 43% of the income comes from the west side. The East has historically paid and currently pays the majority of funds for every asset in JSD - to suggest that they have to "buy them again" is ludicrous.

disillusioned | 5:59 p.m. July 31, 2008

Here's a clue, from a child who attended WEST side Jordan schools, and has had other experiences with these districts. Granite and Jordan districts HAVE ALWAYS had a HUGE east side bias.Both school boards for years have sided with EAST SIDE PARENTS, given the east side schools more money, preference in construction, and so forth. What is REALLY happening here is ABSOLUTE GREED FROM THE EAST SIDE OF JORDAN DISTRICT!!!! I have seen this greed in action since I was a tiny student, from HUGELY overcrowded schools on the west side, while the east side schools sat not full, to east side schools that were not as old getting preferential construction projects done before the older west side schools.
As I have said since my senior year in high school, the ONLY way to make an equitable split of THESE TWO GREED-RUN DISTRICTS was to NEVER allow an east/west side split! Obviously, no one every listens to the wisdom of the young!!!

So, my personal opinion now, since the fascist leaders of the state don't allow all involved to have a voice, is for the west side of both districts to combine and stage a coup!

The Cost of Voting | 12:26 p.m. | 7:27 p.m. July 31, 2008

You are misinformed about the assets that the departing schools left in the WAC. Utah had just completed a near championship run the the NCAA tournament. The payout for that run was paid out to the WAC over several years after the Utah left the WAC.

Know your facts.

The east side voted to buy a school district (by a slim 6% margin) without knowing the terms and conditions of that purchase. You would think that the those on the east side with their superior intellects wouldn't commit such a blunder.

But I guess they did. Go figure...

You will get the deal that Utah got when they left money for the NCAA basketball tournamewnt in the WAC after they left for the MWC.

to disillusioned | 9:04 p.m. July 31, 2008

Just a thought--I also attended school in the Jordan District (east side), graduating 16 years ago. In response to your overcrowding issue: In my day, the east side schools were busting at the seams. I taught in the Jordan District for 8 years on the west side, and, guess what, now the west side schools are terribly overcrowded. I don't know that it is necessarily an east side bias, but reflective of the growth patterns in the valley. Fortunately, while I taught in South Jordan, my school's boundaries were altered at least 3 times due to new construction on the west side where it was needed most at the time.

Anom | 10:26 p.m. July 31, 2008

You all voted yes and now you cry. Open your wallets and be quite. I am a west sider and not happy about the split and I did not ahve a vote. You did!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funding | 11:31 p.m. July 31, 2008

I hope that someone can enlighten me on this. With property values in decline (and hopefully most are appealing their property assessments, other issue) will not that decrease the amount of money available to schools? If that is true and with the passage of the equalization bill, if districts want to maintain current levels of services won't they have to raise taxes to maintain services or cut them? So in the end, if this is true, it is the kids that are hurt.

I really don't care if the split happens, but it was slammed through and that is where the error lies. It wasn't thought out, and that is where the error lies. I think the biggest thing I see missing from this mess is that old thing called "common sense."

Fundin facts | 9:56 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

If all property values in the valley suddenly were cut in half, it would not affect the gross dollars the school district (or any other taxing authority) would receive. By Utah law, the tax RATE in that scenario would simply double. The Truth in Taxation law we operate under requires that each taxing entity use a certified tax rate that is derived by taxing total revenue from previous year for the entity, dividing it by the current total assessed value and then adding in a component for "new growth" (i.e. new homes & businesses to service are factored into the new year's amount). Thus is all home values double, the certified tax rate would automatically be cut in half.
If you look at the history of TAX RATES for JSD, you'll find that in the past (when the east was growing and virtually nothing was on the west side), the TAX RATES were double what they are now. So as a percentage of income those east side schools were a much greater burden to build on the east side than the the west side growth is or will ever be (even under the worst-case scenarios).

Crabby Deal. | 8:53 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Back room deals make for bad government. This thing has been a disaster from the start. We need to hold Cullimore, Curtis, Dolan, and Carlene Walker accoutable. Let's vote them all out. Govenor Huntsman needs to call a Special Session and put this whole mess on hold. God help us all!!!

Crabby | 11:02 a.m. Aug. 2, 2008

I will hold Cullimore, Curtis, and Walker accountable for their role in this deal. Each time their name appears on my ballot they'll get an enthusiastic supportive vote from this taxpayer.

Putting "this whole mess on hold" or "redo"ing it would be the WORST course of action. The remaining district NEEDS new bonding - any more delay only makes those schools more & more expensive. Do you really think that an East Side compelled to stay with you (after having voted to leave) would seriously APPROVE another BILLION DOLLARS of their tax money to go west for your exclusive benefit? Get real...

funny truth | 9:08 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Actualy Crabby2.

The new District, Jordan East, plans to bond up to 500 million. The West district has its needs met for five more years till they will be talking bond.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.