On Monday, The Tribune is scheduled to publish an article about the three specific options for ending Utah’s involvement in the United Effort Plan and somehow giving or returning property to residents of Hildale and Colorado City.
The options were explained at a Nov. 30 meeting in Colorado City. I created the information box below to run along side the article.
Do the pros and cons listed accurately reflect the options? What do you favor?
— Nate Carlisle
Pros, cons of United Effort Plan property proposals
Pros • Favored by show of hands in Nov. 30 meeting; ensures beneficiaries receive homes of their own; considers wants and needs of applicants.
Cons • Subjective method for determining who gets what; probably not enough homes for everyone; some property will still have to be sold to pay trust debts; beneficiaries could sign homes to Warren Jeffs.
Pros • Less subjective than distributing property; raises money to pay trust debts; could give assets to more people; forgoes question of who belongs in each house.
Cons • Probably not enough homes for everyone; open bidding could price some longtime residents out of their homes; Warren Jeffs lieutenants could buy properties.
Reformed governing board
Pros • Puts Hildale and Colorado City residents back in control; could restore housing situation and governance to what it was before mass evictions and departures of last decade.
Cons • Puts Hildale and Colorado City residents back in control, including those loyal to Warren Jeffs; trust would still have to find cash to pay debts.