Deseret News | Reader comments: Arbitrate Jordan District split

Reader comments
Arbitrate Jordan District split

well duh! | 7:23 a.m. April 9, 2008

I grew up in Sandy - along with many of my current west-side neighbors. Back then, there was only one school in western Jordan District - but the people there paid for building all the schools in Sandy and Draper, didn't they. Now, after people in Sandy got theirs, they want out. All along, people have been warning them that it was ludicrous and would be expensive to double the management of the education of the kids in the south end of the valley. Besides being inordanately self-centered, are they also just plain dumb? Were I on the transition team, I would say, "OK, new district. You want schools? We'll make you such a deal." Sure, Jordan District (not individual land owners) took out the bonds, but it also owns the properties. So, let Jordan District keep the bonds and the buildings. Let the new district buy whatever properties they want at a fair price, then sell the rest to the highest bidders. The east-side voters made their choice - why are we so eager to protect them from the consequences of that choice?

Ed | 7:23 a.m. April 9, 2008

What is amazing is who DID the study and why people bought into it. Take a look back at who did the study and this man's track record in education. The people who bought into it bought into what they wanted to believe and they didn't care less about the overall financial fallout. All we can hope for now is that the federal court in Denver is paying attention to these problems and will say that the vote (in the first place) was unconstitutional and recreate the old JSD. Then, legislation that makes sense (such as expanding the number of JSD board members to better represent the growing population in the south end of the valley) will go through Capitol Hill. In the meantime, take a walk in the past and look at who proposed this mess in the first place and VOTE them OUT!

Premature | 7:24 a.m. April 9, 2008

Come on Deseret Morning News, don't you think you are a bit premature on this? The two teams haven't even met to discuss their differences yet.

Comments continue below

michaelh | 7:36 a.m. April 9, 2008

We on the west side of the Jordan School district vote to sell all of our assets, on the east side, to the new school district.
Pay up snotty easterners and no you don't get a vote on this.

Chuck | 7:51 a.m. April 9, 2008

The west is being told to pay for its own needs, and they don't like it. That, despite the fact that, the rest of the valley will be helping to support them from legislation just passed.

This isn't like a divorse that should have been avoided. Dividing as we grow helps preserve government BY AND OF THE PEOPLE. To govern effectively and build the patrons in the process of governance BY AND OF THE PEOPLE, we MUST divide as we grow. Either that or become overgrown, decay, and then die, like every thing else.

Granite cannot avoid the need to do this. It should be done for ALL of our big districts. It is not a matter of not listening to patrons. It is NOT a failure of Jordan's Board. It is about best governance, and that can best be done on a smaller size. It is best for BOTH the west and the east. In fact it isn't small enough.

michaelh | 8:28 a.m. April 9, 2008

Hey Chuck!
THE PEOPLE DID NOT GET TO VOTE, ONLY THE EASTSIDE GOT TO VOTE!
So we on the west vote that you can divorce us but we get the house and you get the support payments.

Way to go Michaelh | 10:53 a.m. April 9, 2008

I don't disagree that the district is to big, but the eastside who has benefitted from our money all along now wants to be its own district.

Great! But since when did becoming a new district mean that you retain the assets of the old district? Buy the assets. We already paid for them once. We shouldn't have to be robbed again in taxes just because now that the eastside area is mostly built out and the need for new schools are lessening, they want out of the district.

The whole thing was unconstitutional! Not even all the people on the eastside got to vote, let alone the rest of the people that would be effected.

We on the westside not only got the short end of the stick, but our government "Representatives" sold us out also. They bought into the lies told by the eastside creators of this mess (imagine a politician telling a lie, boggles the mind doesn't it?) and sold us out for their own political motivations.

George | 11:03 a.m. April 9, 2008

I believe the West-side greed will prove to be their undoing. As I read the 2-page report negociated by a small group from both transition teams, it looked as if the West would have gotten 2/3rds of the assets, while the East would have only received 1/3rd of the assets with most of the debt. As an East-sider I could have accepted the negociated agreement. But since the West-side transition team rejected the recommendation of 2 of its members, I'm satsified (not necessarily happy) that this is headed to arbitration. Maybe the result will be closer to a 50/50 split.

Selfish people need mediators. | 11:22 a.m. April 9, 2008

I don't understand the rational behind the West siders insisting the East district suddenly has no vested interest in the resources puchased with the bonds they helped pay off and must "Buy the schools in their boundaries from the West side"?

Is it fair to expect them to buy these schools twice? The schools you're talking about were in place and paid for when I was a kid, and I'm almost 50 now. Why should they have to pay for them again?

Sure taxes from the whole district paid for them the first time. THAT'S WHY THEY NEED TO BE DIVIDED. Because both communities currently have partial interest in them.

Do you not see how selfish and unfair it is to insist that those in the East district lost their investment in these schools?

If not... That's why they need to get impartial mediators involved, because we are so SELFISH and only want what will serve US best and can't negotiate something that is "Fair" for both parties.

If district leaders can't be impartial and unbiased, we need to find someone who can (just like in a divorce, company split or any other split that requires realocating SHARED resources).

Mike R. | 11:54 a.m. April 9, 2008

This was the undoubtedly stupidest thing that has ever happened in Utah history. This split should have never been allowed to happen, especially after the west side didn't even get to vote on it. Had they been allowed to vote, the split wouldn't have happened and the east siders could continue to whine. As a resident of Granite School district, I don't like my taxes being raised to pay for this idiocy. It is taxation without representation and I didn't get to vote on it either.

Jordan was quite a good district before, I can't see services getting any better after the split, just worse for both districts.

WJ | 11:59 a.m. April 9, 2008

Selfish people need mediators 11:22. If I choose to leave a church and go to another church, I cannot ask my former church for my contributions required as part of membership back or for the assets those contributions purchased. The east side voted to leave the Jordan District; leave the district and its assets alone.

RE: Selfish | 12:09 p.m. April 9, 2008

And how selfish is it of the east siders to take decades of taxes from the west side and then say, "OK, we got what we want with your money, now we're out of here. Oh and we want all of the assets that we can possibly get our hands on. Every worthwile program that is on the west side really belongs on the east side."

The west side helped pay for all the growth on the east side, and you cant claim you were paying for your own. My grandfathers farm was on the west side and no matter how much he complained about the taxes he had to pay that went to building schools on the east side he still paid them as did my father and me. Now in the last few years the west side is growing that the east siders that have selfishly taking everyones taxes for their growth are not willing to reciprocate.

Please dont claim the west side is selfish when your at least as selfish as anyone on the west side and most likely a lot more.

KF | 12:41 p.m. April 9, 2008

The east side has paid back the west side for all of the schools the west side seems so anxious to point out that they paid for. If you do a count of how many schools each district will retain, it is split right down the middle. The west side wants to keep building with impunity at other's expense. How's this west side - some personal responsibility - pay for what you use. The west side doesn't want to negotiate. They are bitter and are more interesed in hindering the process than helping it along.

Get over it. It was a LEGAL vote. Perhaps you should be mad at your legislators who couldn't stop the bill to allow FORMING of new districts from being passed. How did your legislator vote on that bill? Do you even know or care, or do you just want to be obstinate?

Too "WJ 11:59" | 1:26 p.m. April 9, 2008

Your analogy is silly. This isn't anything like a member of a congregation deciding to go to a different church. That's an apples to oranges comparison.

Your example is more like a student deciding to move from one school to another... and then YES the general-fund alocation for that student goes to the new school and NOT stay with the school he is no longer attending.

It sounds like you are suggesting that the funds allocated for him should keep going to the school he isn't attending and he should have to pay new taxes to go to the new school.

This situation is more like a company that is splitting and becoming 2 companies. They need to decide who gets what printers, computers, employees, office space, etc. Who get's the company's debts, profits etc. My company recently split and we had to decide how to divide the debt we incured together, who gets the profits for the product we developed together, etc.

West side's selfish, "West-District-should-get-all-the-assets, East-District should get NOTHING (except the obligation to pay off the bonds) and if they want any of the buildings our co-mingled taxes bought, they will have to buy them-from-us". Pretty-much-the-definition-of-SELFISH.

WJ | 1:25 p.m. April 9, 2008

KF, the legality of the vote is still being adjudicated. Yes, it has been upheld in court, but it is still under appeal. And even if the courts finally conclude in your favor, it does not necessarily mean it was just or moral.

Ignorance | 2:17 p.m. April 9, 2008

To those of you from the west side who feel you have been paying for east side schools PLEASE do the research. It is impossible, absolutely impossible for the west side to have contributed any funding to the building of the east side schools. Since at least the mid 1970's, all development on the west side has been subsidized by the east side. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence, not conjecture. A simple look at Jordan's own growth summit data reveal that demographics and property taxes have overwhelmingly been on the east side until just the past few years. The east side has consistently carried the bulk of the load (57% is the current LOW) for JSD. It is ludicrous to assert otherwise.

As for the proposed allocation of assets, etc. to east and west, the negotiations were the product of serious minds taking the matter seriously. Unfortunately, there are those on the west side transition team who are less than serious and will do anything to blow this thing up. Which is cutting of their nose to spite their face. The consequences of staying together will be much worse than the split.

WJ | 2:32 p.m. April 9, 2008

You voted to leave, you pay the consequence. Even if you don't like my analogy. Don't expect me to bail you out when I had no say in the matter!

To WJ at 1:25 PM | 2:49 p.m. April 9, 2008

You are correct, Herriman is pulling out all the stops to stop this process. The other cities have seen this as fruitless and have decided to spend their taxpayer's dollars on other city issues. Herriman, with no tax base other than property tax, chose to build, build, build houses with no regard to tax base, or infrastructure, expecting everyone else to take care of it for them. If I lived in Herriman and had to fight that traffic every day, I'd be pretty miffed that the mayor has decided to spend million(s) of dollars to fight this process.

big picture | 3:02 p.m. April 9, 2008

WJ, What a selfish attitude. Think of the 80,000 kids JSD is responsible for -- including 35,000 east, 45,000 west. We need to look at the big picture for the sake of the children and not take such a punitive approach. The truth of the matter is that the division has the potential of opportunity for both sides of the district if people would just get involved and stop all the bellyaching. Continuing to complain and naysay serves no productive purpose.

Too "WJ 2:32" | 3:35 p.m. April 9, 2008

I don't expect you to bail me out. Just not snatching all the school buildings for yourself and give all the debt to me would be acceptable.

The new district having to start from scratch plus inherit the future and current bonds was never a "Consequence" (as you put it) of the vote to split the district.

By law (and common sense) there has to be a re-appropriation of resources and obligations. Your proposed "All resources go to the West-District, and if the East-District wants any of their schools back they must buy them from us", just isn't anywhere near fair.

That this proposal seems perfectly fair to you is the reason we need arbitrators who are not biased and selfish to insure the process is "fair" to BOTH districts.

WJ | 3:59 p.m. April 9, 2008

If you vote to leave, you can't take district property with you when you leave. No one forced you out, you chose to leave.

This was not my original position, but I heard so much from the east side about how the west side has to pay the east side and how it was a fair vote when the west side had no say and all the other rhetoric, you pushed me to a more strident and polarized position.

If you want a fair process, let all those affected have a vote in the matter. Until then, I will stridently claim that since you voted to leave, go ahead and leave, but don't take district property with you.

big picture | 4:32 p.m. April 9, 2008

Sorry, WJ, but that approach is illegal. The division of assets, by law, is required to be "fair and equitable." Both districts must be viable.

Too "WJ" | 4:52 p.m. April 9, 2008

Like I said... It's people like you, who can't deal fairly with their neighbors, that will force us to use arbitrators.

Z | 5:17 p.m. April 9, 2008

If you didn't like the proposed division of resources by the transition team, you will be really unhappy with whatever an arbitrator comes up with. The transition team may still be able to negotiate something close to a win-win situation (or as close as we can get to a win-win in this ridiculous mess.) Arbitration will undoubtedly be lose-lose.

For the Kids | 9:32 p.m. April 9, 2008

This decision made effects east and west side children. If there is to be a fair split it should be based solely on the number of children in each district. Split the assests and debt by the number of students in each district. Kids are being hurt by this split, monies will not be there for things that a large district can afford from a large pot. Programs that large districts can apply for will be also be gone. Everywhere large district are being made because of the benifits of monies & buying power & programs big districts get. The buying power to buy in larger amounts to save tax money is going to be gone, taking money away from the kids. Whoever came up with this bright idea is only hurting the kids. The costs to pay for district staff needed in each district is a duplication of services, taking money that could be spent on the kids. The costs will only be more to everyone. Kids & tax payers are the losers in this idiotic split. All because someone didn't like decisions made by Jordan School District that were fair for all kids.

bigger is not better | 9:55 p.m. April 9, 2008

On the contrary, For the Kids. Children and taxpayers will be huge winners.

Most school districts across the state are much, much smaller than JSD. In fact, Jordan ranks 40th in the nation in districts of the largest size. Research indicates that districts with about 20,000-25,000 students operate most effeciently. Overhead actually increases as more students are added to better manage on a larger scale. Jordan District now has 80,000 students and extends 250 square miles. That makes effective management very difficult. Even with the division, both districts will still be very large -- 35,000 east, 45,000 west. But at least, we're heading in the right direction. A smaller district can more readily concentrate resources and attention -- and that is a benefit to kids, as well as taxpayers.

OHH | 8:01 a.m. April 10, 2008

The legislation that made this split possible is about as poor as legislation gets. The end result will be much higher taxes and loss of options for students. But hey, they'll have a little "control" or so they thought. Thanks Rep. Walker, Mayor Cullimore and Speaker Greg Curtis. I hope you are well pleased with your efforts. Hopefully voters will give you a long vacation which I think is well deserved considering such poor legislation.

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.