Reader comments: Mayors propose Jordan District compromise

10 comments  |  Read story

Dirty Politics | 9:40 a.m. Aug. 16, 2008
The whole process of splitting the Jordan District has been dirty. The South Valley Politicians hatched this mess in Coke filled back rooms. The political heavy weights did not want the West Side to vote on this matter because they knew the West Side might have voted it down. We need to vote out every politician who had a hand in this debacle. We should start with Curtis, Cullimore, Dolan, Walker and Smith. Independents and Democrats need to vote in large number and sending a ringing message to our GOP Leaders that we are tired of Special Interest Politics and undemocratic government. Please vote for Seegmiller, Beck, Morgan, Black and the other great Democratic Candidates running in South Valley this year. End the voice of Special Interest Groups, vote out the bad boy Republicans this fa11.
Chuck | 12:31 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
The only dirt has come through the back door from the district office. They don't want their kingdom broken up, and they'll say anything or skew any figures to stop it.

This compromise shows just how much the west side IS getting from the east and how little the east gets back.
Concerned | 1:41 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
The process has been unfair?

1) Of the $330 plus million spent by the Jordan School for captial improvements - 97% spent on the West side and 3% on the east side.

2) When the 2003 bonds were issued, the information provided by the Jordan School District showed 18.5% going to the East side and 81.5% to the West Side.

3) Of the nearly one billion in capital assets of the Jordan District - 78% will be going to the West side and 22% to the East side.

4) The East side will continue to pay over the next 15 to 20 years $270 million on the payments for the 2003 Bonds (97% funds to the west side).

5) The East side will pay over $3 million each year, and the total will be $12 million each year from all school districts in Salt Lake County to the West Side. Estimated that $344 million in subsidy will be going to the west side.

6) West and eaest side members of the legislature did vote. Some of the votes from the west side may surprise you.

Hardly unfair.
Comments continue below
Excellent? Not | 2:12 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Carlene Walker has it all wrong. This is not an excellent deal; it is absolutely not a fair settlement. It is a compromise, and the reason I know it is a compromise -- pure and simple -- is that neither side is happy with it. What the transition teams need to decide at this point is whether it is something worth accepting in order to move forward.
To concerned | 3:10 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Based on your numbers, it is unfair -- to the east.
Gary | 10:44 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
When this thing was sold, each district would keep the buildings in their district, and the liabilities that went with them. Plain and simple. AFTER the east side voted, they realized they weren't going to come out as well as they thought. So they started changing appraisals, formulas, processes so they could come out ahead. Walker is corrupt and disgraceful. So are Buttars, Wimmer and Newbold from the west side for selling their own districts out to keep their east side cohorts happy. The West Side's own senator and reps sold out on this one. I'm all for the split - just done fairly. The legislature screwed this thing up so bad and it only gets worse.
No new numbers | 11:41 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
The rhetoric from the RSDTT about "new numbers" and the Mayors' ignorance is simply untrue. The difference in student population and the difference in taxable values per student have been known for almost two years now.

Gary: Keeping the liabilities associated with the assets was NOT on the table. The East side would be head-over-heels in love with that idea, 'cause then the west would have to actually pay for the 97% of the bonds they've used, rather than coughing up a mere 43%. [The law sates that real assets should stay in whatever district they're in).
Gary | 12:58 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
The ENTIRE district voted the bond issue. There was no east/west side when it was voted. And 97% of that bond has not been used on the west side - another lie. $40 million is set for Draper High School alone! And a junior high was cut from each side so don't drop that argument. STEALING $100 million from the Jordan School district was never part of the plan. And the equalization bill was criminal. It wasn't enough for the East Side to walk away once their infrastructure was built, but then to stick the bill for the split on Murray, Salt Lake and Granite Districts is wholly immoral. All the while, only the new district got a vote! Hey east side - if you're going to do that to the rest of us, at least have the decency to buy us dinner first!
the truth | 9:11 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008
$40 million for Draper High School?? I bet the folks in Draper would be very happy to hear that -- if it were true. The fact of the matter is 97 percent of the 2003 bond will be used for the west side, and not one penny of the $196 million in bonds issued last year by JSD will go to the east even though the east is obligated to make payments until 2022. Get your facts straight, Gary.
@Gary | 1:19 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008
No such thing as "Draper High Schoo" in the bonds. That's pure fabrication/ignorance on your part.
With that in mind, the 97% of the 2003 bond being used solely on the west side is COMPLETELY accurate. Sorry to bust your whine.
The Equalization bill does NOT exclude the new district. The New District will be contributing MORE than any other SL County District (save SLC) to the growing (remaining) Jordan School District. The "pro-splitters" as they've been inacurrately called didn't support the equalization because it would save them money (it, in fact, costs them >$3.5 million per year!!!), they did it to pacify the whiners in the remaining Jordan School District.

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.