Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

I have what I want from both you and Kifeas, that the first option is with the current occupier, this is very important for us because the majority of TCs who have land in the south will sell up and buy out the GC or find the financing to settle the deal, if not they can give it back, that's the compromise for the TC but will the GCs accept the compromise that they will more than likely not get their land back?

Well, I don't know about what Kifea's meant, but let me reinstate what I said. I'm talking about TC families who are occupying GC properties that should be given the options to buy first , and was not talking about the settlers with your "current occupier" comment above. Compromise is going to be a two way street to work. The settlers will need to make their own deals seperate from the offer made to the TC's. Where it comes to the settlers, then the GC's should get the "first choice". Also VP, I made it very clear in my post to Deniz, that the TC's "first option" deal only apply to structures built on GC land, and not the GC land that is empty, be it be in commercial zone or agricultural land. These lands will have an automatic return to their legal GC owners no matter how much investment is lost by those who took the gamble in purchasing GC land. This way it will allow GC's to rebuild on their land in the north if they wish to and not be forced to sell just to keep the north "pure Turkish", because that will not be unifying the island, but ethnically dividing the island, you know, much like what it is today, which what I thought was the reason to have peace talks in re-uniting the island.

I agree with everything you are saying and to be honest I dont care about the settlers land issues, they have to turn to Turkey or the TRNC for resolve, TCs are more important to me. The problem I see Kikapu is that many TCs have not only built lives on GC land but have also sold off or developed other GC land, I feel as long as they can pay for it the first option should be with the TC and visa versa, otherwise there will be chaos and rejection of any plan that would take away what they have put their money into.

[Kikapu]

I agree with everything you are saying and to be honest I dont care about the settlers land issues, they have to turn to Turkey or the TRNC for resolve, TCs are more important to me. The problem I see Kikapu is that many TCs have not only built lives on GC land but have also sold off or developed other GC land, I feel as long as they can pay for it the first option should be with the TC and visa versa, otherwise there will be chaos and rejection of any plan that would take away what they have put their money into.

Well, I'm glad you are seeing things in a more reasonable way. I hope Christofias and the GC's in general agree for compromises as I've suggested. We all know compromises will need to be made no matter what kind of a deal is reached, so lets have one where it will bring the GC's and TC's much closer rather than push them apart, as long as they all feel that they are citizens of Cyprus, then it will be good of their country and of their fellow citizens.

VP, lets say a TC family was given 10 donums of GC land with a house on it. The house and the One Donum of land is what will be negotiated as being the "first option". The other 9 Donums of land, will need to be returned back to the GC owner no questions asked. If the TC family who offers to buy the house and the one donum that the house sits on, can negotiate to buy the remaining 9 donums, providing there are no structures of dwellings on them, and the GC owner is willing to sell. It will be a free marketplace to do what ever they want. The same will be in the south with the TC's property and land.

[Viewpoint]

I agree with everything you are saying and to be honest I dont care about the settlers land issues, they have to turn to Turkey or the TRNC for resolve, TCs are more important to me. The problem I see Kikapu is that many TCs have not only built lives on GC land but have also sold off or developed other GC land, I feel as long as they can pay for it the first option should be with the TC and visa versa, otherwise there will be chaos and rejection of any plan that would take away what they have put their money into.

Well, I'm glad you are seeing things in a more reasonable way. I hope Christofias and the GC's in general agree for compromises as I've suggested. We all know compromises will need to be made no matter what kind of a deal is reached, so lets have one where it will bring the GC's and TC's much closer rather than push them apart, as long as they all feel that they are citizens of Cyprus, then it will be good of their country and of their fellow citizens.

VP, lets say a TC family was given 10 donums of GC land with a house on it. The house and the One Donum of land is what will be negotiated as being the "first option". The other 9 Donums of land, will need to be returned back to the GC owner no questions asked. If the TC family who offers to buy the house and the one donum that the house sits on, can negotiate to buy the remaining 9 donums, providing there are no structures of dwellings on them, and the GC owner is willing to sell. It will be a free marketplace to do what ever they want. The same will be in the south with the TC's property and land.

I feel that the clean cut way would be to go along if the TC can afford what he was given by the TRNC then he should have first option, if not the land goes back to the GC, but compensation appears to be the best solution which will cause the less headaches for all concerned.

[Kikapu]

I feel that the clean cut way would be to go along if the TC can afford what he was given by the TRNC then he should have first option, if not the land goes back to the GC, but compensation appears to be the best solution which will cause the less headaches for all concerned.

You are going to have a hard time selling that VP. What you are saying to the GC's basically is,
"yes we want to reunify, but not in my back yard". In another words, the GC's will not be allowed to return any part of their land in the north, if money can be used to keep them away. In case you missed it, I did say that compromise was going to be a two way street.

I did not get one of the officials from the north making a suggestion couple of weeks ago regarding the GC properties in the north, which he said that "the GC's can have all their properties back in the north, if they promise not to move into them".

I can see many violations of "freedom of movement" with that proposal I'm afraid and with yours VP.

[Viewpoint]

I feel that the clean cut way would be to go along if the TC can afford what he was given by the TRNC then he should have first option, if not the land goes back to the GC, but compensation appears to be the best solution which will cause the less headaches for all concerned.

You are going to have a hard time selling that VP. What you are saying to the GC's basically is,
"yes we want to reunify, but not in my back yard". In another words, the GC's will not be allowed to return any part of their land in the north, if money can be used to keep them away. In case you missed it, I did say that compromise was going to be a two way street.

I did not get one of the officials from the north making a suggestion couple of weeks ago regarding the GC properties in the north, which he said that "the GC's can have all their properties back in the north, if they promise not to move into them".

I can see many violations of "freedom of movement" with that proposal I'm afraid and with yours VP.

Think of it in reverse, GCs have always claimed we have less property in the south so only 10-18% will be able to put into practice what I am saying the rest will be available for return or compensation. I still do not think Gcs will want to come live in the North state and we be looking to sell up anyway, the influx of available property for sale will of bring prices down therefore allowing purchases to occur naturally.

[denizaksulu]

Thanks for your lengthy response Kikapu. What a mess. It seems you are willing to accept that many TCs will be left homeless, as they will not be able to afford the current prices. Who will home these people. They would be in their 60+ years with little or no savings. Who should rehouse them?

My pleasure Deniz.

Yes, it is a mess.!!

Deniz, please help me out here to understand what you said, that the TC's who will not be able to buy the house and the land that it sits on from the legal GC owner will become homeless. Surely you are not saying, that anyone who does not own a house, are homeless, because only about 30% of Swiss are home owners and the other 70% are not homeless on the streets, but they live very comfortably by renting. The same will be for those TC's also. There is a good chance they will be able to rent directly from the GC owner, or move to another dwelling in another part of the village or town where the marketplace will determine who can afford what and where they end up living, as the case is everywhere in the Democratic world, so I reject your notion to put me in an unsympathetic light in trying to make some TC's in becoming homeless and on the streets. This is where their leaders will need to find a solution for them, since they had created the problem in the first place by allowing "ownership" of GC properties that could never meet any legal scrutiny. Then again, peace was never on the agenda at the time these decisions were made to give away the GC properties, therefore need of legal scrutiny was not necessary.

While we are on the subject of homelessness, I remember few months ago where the Greek orthodox church was even proposing in building places for TC's to stay once they have vacated the GC properties. Lets see if this will materialize and whether or not the TC leadership can also do their best to satisfy those TC's who will need to vacate GC properties.

Vacating GC properties does not = homeless and on the streets for the TC's.!!!

Sorry for the delay. I have been told that I had to earn my living.

I was referring to folk who did not own land who would find themselves homeless. Not everyone has Millions of pounds worth of property in the south.

I was not referring to the 'legal/illegal issue here. There is only one 'fact'.


At the end you say, "Vacating GC properties does not = homeless and on the streets for the TC's.!!!". That seemed your implication in the first proposal you made/quoted.

[Kikapu]

Sorry for the delay. I have been told that I had to earn my living.

................join the club.!!

I was referring to folk who did not own land who would find themselves homeless. Not everyone has Millions of pounds worth of property in the south.

I was not referring to the 'legal/illegal issue here. There is only one 'fact'.


At the end you say, "Vacating GC properties does not = homeless and on the streets for the TC's.!!!". That seemed your implication in the first proposal you made/quoted.

Hi Deniz,

I'm sorry my friend, but I fail to see how you make the connection, that if a TC family is not able to buy the property they are occupying for ten's of thousands of Euros, that they are in no position to afford renting a dwelling that will meet their needs and instead will become homeless and on the streets. No one will become homeless as a result of reunification in Cyprus and a EU member at that. We were homeless and prisoners in 1963/64 and would not wish that on my worse enemies, let alone on my people from Cyprus. In order to reach a fair and just peace, everyone will need to their share and even though there will be tough moments, we are a very strong family oriented society and will not allow anyone, young and old to become homeless in Cyprus.

[denizaksulu]

Sorry for the delay. I have been told that I had to earn my living.

................join the club.!!

I was referring to folk who did not own land who would find themselves homeless. Not everyone has Millions of pounds worth of property in the south.

I was not referring to the 'legal/illegal issue here. There is only one 'fact'.


At the end you say, "Vacating GC properties does not = homeless and on the streets for the TC's.!!!". That seemed your implication in the first proposal you made/quoted.

Hi Deniz,

I'm sorry my friend, but I fail to see how you make the connection, that if a TC family is not able to buy the property they are occupying for ten's of thousands of Euros, that they are in no position to afford renting a dwelling that will meet their needs and instead will become homeless and on the streets. No one will become homeless as a result of reunification in Cyprus and a EU member at that. We were homeless and prisoners in 1963/64 and would not wish that on my worse enemies, let alone on my people from Cyprus. In order to reach a fair and just peace, everyone will need to their share and even though there will be tough moments, we are a very strong family oriented society and will not allow anyone, young and old to become homeless in Cyprus.

I wonder when it was last you went around North Cyprus as an observer rather than a tourist. No offence. I will need the synthesise your original proposals more.

Thank you

[Viewpoint]

Sorry for the delay. I have been told that I had to earn my living.

................join the club.!!

I was referring to folk who did not own land who would find themselves homeless. Not everyone has Millions of pounds worth of property in the south.

I was not referring to the 'legal/illegal issue here. There is only one 'fact'.


At the end you say, "Vacating GC properties does not = homeless and on the streets for the TC's.!!!". That seemed your implication in the first proposal you made/quoted.

Hi Deniz,

I'm sorry my friend, but I fail to see how you make the connection, that if a TC family is not able to buy the property they are occupying for ten's of thousands of Euros, that they are in no position to afford renting a dwelling that will meet their needs and instead will become homeless and on the streets. No one will become homeless as a result of reunification in Cyprus and a EU member at that. We were homeless and prisoners in 1963/64 and would not wish that on my worse enemies, let alone on my people from Cyprus. In order to reach a fair and just peace, everyone will need to their share and even though there will be tough moments, we are a very strong family oriented society and will not allow anyone, young and old to become homeless in Cyprus.

I wonder when it was last you went around North Cyprus as an observer rather than a tourist. No offence. I will need the synthesise your original proposals more.

Thank you

Hes never been to North Cyprus, so how would he know?

[Kikapu]

I wonder when it was last you went around North Cyprus as an observer rather than a tourist. No offence. I will need the synthesise your original proposals more.

Thank you

VP is correct, that I have not been to the north since leaving Cyprus back in 1964. Just what exactly is your point in making that statement.?? Is it because that the TC society is no longer family oriented, therefore the elderly parents and grandparents will be made to sleep in the street by their children and grand children. If that is the case, then the " morally corrupted society" I have been talking about must be worse than I have envisioned, where family is no longer important to them. Is this what you meant or did I miss something Deniz?.

The TC leadership are mostly responsible for creating the crisis we face today on GC properties. If we are going to have peace, property claims are going to be part of that deal. Just because a TC family will not be able to spend couple of hundred thousand Euros to buy out the legal owner, does that then mean that the legal owner suppose to just walk away from his property so that the TC's can stay in his house, while he goes and rents from someone else. What you seem to ignore is, although it is true that not every TC has land in the south to sell to buy out the legal owners in the north, at the same time, most of all the GC's who had to leave their properties in the north, is all they have.

Since you find my proposal unacceptable Deniz, then what is your suggestion to satisfy both the TC's and legal owner, if the property issues is going to be center piece of negotiations..?? "I don't know" will not be acceptable for an answer I'm afraid, so lets hear your suggestions.!

Thanks.