Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4440983.stm

[magikthrill]

very interesting article. although a bit biased still good way of portraying both sides to the story (ie thieves vs victims)

[-mikkie2-]

and it does not bode well for a solution.

[Main_Source]

It makes me laugh why these kind of articles never seem to say the main reasons why the GC voted NO to the Annan plan.

Also, this continued exploitation of GC land just goes to show that Talat isn't as sincere for reunification as he likes to portray.

[erolz]

It makes me laugh why these kind of articles never seem to say the main reasons why the GC voted NO to the Annan plan.

Like the thousands of articles that talk about a Turkish invasion in 74 and fail to mention the events that led to it from 63 onwards? Like the many many people I have spoken to about the Cyprus problem who just assume that the UN were in Cyprus because of the events of 74, when actually they were there 10 years earlier?

Also, this continued exploitation of GC land just goes to show that Talat isn't as sincere for reunification as he likes to portray.

Actually Talat since being in power has tried to slow down the boom, first with a proposal to only alow lease hold sales to foreigners (not freehold) and the proposal to charge differnetial tax on house sales to foreigners. Neither of these bills was implemented but Talat had an insuficent majority to do so. Also the plain fact is that the property boom is making money for people and here as everywhere else money talks. Politicaly it is very difficult to challenge those with interests in this boom (and they are many) - especially with the econmic sanctions placed on the north. It is unfair in my opinion to use this boom as evidence is insincere about reunification. His options are very limited currently and whilst he gained some political support at the last election he still does not have a majority.

The property boom in the North is a result of the Annan plan. Firstly because of the differences it made about undeveloped land vs developed land re rights to return etc which encouraged people to develop land and secondly in creating an impression that a soultion was imminent and that therefore investing in property in the north was a good investment. The frenzy that started in the lead up to the Annan Plan vote has not abated since.

I was asked the following in another thread by mikke2, which I will try and answer here.

So what is your opinion on the uncontrolled property boom as per the bbc article you posted on another thread?

Most of these properties are being sold to british buyers.

Do you agree with it?

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20408#20408

Mikkie this is not an easy or simple question.

Firstly I would just point out that the sale of property to foreigners is not totaly uncontrolled here. Any property that was not foreign owned pre 74 has to have the sale to a foreigner approved by the council of ministers here. The controlls may not be effective enough but it is not totaly uncontrolled. A bit pedantic maybe but I felt I should mention this.

I have real concerns about the property boom, totaly outside of the 'cyprus issue' simply on the basis of the environmental impacts. The north of Cyprus is really very special right now in terms of the lack of mass development and it saddens me to see this being destroyed without much more careful consideration. I also have some concerns on the effects on house prices for locals.

In terms of the property boom in the context of the Cyprus issue I do not think it aids the possibility of a solution. However I am very aware of the very real effects of the economic sanctions against the north and the impact that has on TC here (even if I am not personaly affected as my income is UK based) and that is a very real factor. If I had totalitarian control of the North I would not stop sales to foreigners all togeather. I would limit devlopment based on environmental considerations. I would block sales of GC land that was 'given' (rather than exchanged for property lost in south) - though in reality almost no foreigner buys such land / property they buy exclusively from foreign or TC pre 74 or exchange. I would also look to link restrictions on future sales to easing of economic sanctions on the north - with the first priorty being direct flights. The North has to be able to make a living and I would like to see us increasingly less dependent on Turkey for aid. Tourism is the biggest single area that could help us do this and allowing direct flights the biggest single factor in increasing tourism.

As to the specific question 'do I agree with it' I do not really know how to answer that. Can you agree with a property devlopment and sales boom? I can dislike it which I do for various reason and I can have concerns about it, which I do for various reasons but I am not really sure I can agree (or disagree) with it.

My personal view is that the boom will not continue indefiantely - as no boom does, it just leads to bust. Prices have risen considerably here in the last 3 years or so and more and more development continues. Ultimately market reality will kick in, and when it becomes apparent that there are simply more properties for sale than there are poeple who want to buy them. There is a very real bubble feel to the current boom imo and the bubble will burst sooner or later regardless of what happens on the legal / politcial front.

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

Properties have not been exchanged in an official sense. The TC authorities simply did a unilateral exchange with no agreement by individulas concerned.

Secondly, the Annan plan has not been passed! It states that should it not pass, then all its provisions will be null and void.

My view is that the TC's could develop state land (which there is plenty of) but they should leave alone land that is under private ownership. That is the only fair thing to do until we get a solution.

The other consideration is environmental. Its not just the changes that you can see that will be the problem its those that you don't see. Much of the forested area of the north has been felled, the water resources are inadequate to support the building boom, much of the property being built is of questionable quality (I expect a large percentage of them to collapse in the event of an earthquake), sewerage systems are primitive to say the least, which adds another burden to the limited water resources and infrastructure is poor by modern standards.

The BBC article pretty much showed that greed is the overiding consideration here. I bet you that most of the money being made leaves Cyprus just as quickly as the houses are constructed. This does not serve the TC community, it does not serve the GC's and it most certainly does not serve the interests of Cyprus.

[brother]

I understand what erol is saying as a tc but i agree with mikkie in his statement about enough state land and to leave gc lands alone.

[cannedmoose]

I would hate to see the north becoming like Protoras or Agia Napa with half-empty apartment blocks filling the horizon. The point about sustainability is also moot, water resources are tight enough on the island without having 50,000 more homes draining the resources. The key to the north's development of a tourism industry should be as an alternative to the "build-em high, flog/rent 'em cheap" situation that the southern resorts went down. High-class, high-quality and in sympathy with the environment should be the direction. I also agree with Mikkie and Bro in that there is enough land to build on without the need to use land legally owned by GCs.

[erolz]

Erol,

Properties have not been exchanged in an official sense. The TC authorities simply did a unilateral exchange with no agreement by individulas concerned.

I understand this - i was simply trying to distinguish between the categories of land. Next time I 'll call this category 'unagreed exchange land' (though will probably get pulled up for this as there is no 'agreed exchange land')

Secondly, the Annan plan has not been passed! It states that should it not pass, then all its provisions will be null and void.

I undertsand this as well. All I was pointing out was that the (run up to) the Annan plan was actually the start of this boom. Pre referendum estate agents were using 'imminent' EU entry of the North as a 'slaes tool'. After it's rejection by GC they simply used that as a 'sales tool' (GC have said no to internationaly brokered plan - therefore north Cyprus will not be punished and therefore property sales here are 'safe'. Do nto get me wrong this is not what I am sating but what estate agents are saying.

My view is that the TC's could develop state land (which there is plenty of) but they should leave alone land that is under private ownership. That is the only fair thing to do until we get a solution.

I understand your position on this but again it is not a simple situation. As imaginary leader of the North (or just as a TC) what am I too say to the TC that desperately wants to raise money for say their childrens education, or a family members health care and whose only asset is the land / property they were given by the TRNC in exchange for their land lost in the South post 74?

The other consideration is environmental. Its not just the changes that you can see that will be the problem its those that you don't see. Much of the forested area of the north has been felled, the water resources are inadequate to support the building boom, much of the property being built is of questionable quality (I expect a large percentage of them to collapse in the event of an earthquake), sewerage systems are primitive to say the least, which adds another burden to the limited water resources and infrastructure is poor by modern standards.

As I said I too have real concerns about the environmental issues. It is however 'hard' for me to lecture my fellow TC on the negatives of economic development, as I have lived my life in the UK uptill a few years ago and had all the benefits of that and still have an income from the UK, where as they have watched the rest of the world develop and grow richer whilst they ttmeselves have remained realtively poor.

The BBC article pretty much showed that greed is the overiding consideration here. I bet you that most of the money being made leaves Cyprus just as quickly as the houses are constructed. This does not serve the TC community, it does not serve the GC's and it most certainly does not serve the interests of Cyprus.

Is greed not the overriding motive of all development? Have we not as a specieis already done massive (and possibly irreperable) damage to the worls in the name of greed? Do we not continue to do so around the globe?
Much of the profits may well leave Cyprus but the fact is that much does not. It's not just the direct profits form the sale of houses, there is the construction industries, estate agentices jobs and then all the anciallary wealth created by serving the needs of an expat community (gardeners, cleaners, mechanics, shop keepers etc etc). All of this puts very real money in the hands of very real TC many of whom sorely need such.