Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nickp]

I think the issue of all GC's claiming their properties back is just not going to be a realistic under a solution. As too much time has passed and TC's have built their lively hoods, further more, they've made the thing alot mroe complicated through mainland settlers and exploiting land to tourists.

However, if we fight for a fair solution the TC's and Turkey should prepare themselves for huge compensation cases if GC's can't return.

It's probably gonna be a mixture of GC's claiming back what they can, some people leaving properties in the north, and new homes being built.

As for these holiday homes, under any fair solution it can only go so many ways, either demolish it and return the land with a small compensation costs. The GC inherits the holdiay house as compensation and leases it to the occupant for rent. Or the occupant or Turkey will be responsible for paying the true current day value + compensation for not being able to claim it for 30 years.

Either way, there are a bunch of negotiated outcomes that can be disccussed to settle property. All i say is that in any fair solution which should be fair but yet practicle if you want a solution, don't expect an GC's to lose their property empty handed just for the sake of a solution.

[erolz]

Here is an example of the house I live in. It may not be entirely acurate because to be honest I am not entirely sure of the exact details*.

The land (1/4 donum) was empty in 74 and belogned to a GC. After 74 it was given by the TRNC (or TFSC as then) to a TC in lieu of land they lost in the south. In the 80's an australian TC returned from australia, bought this land from the TC who had been granted it in lieu of thier lost land in the south and built a house on it. However his family did not settle in Cyprus and they decided to return. In the 90's my father (a TC by birth who left Cyprus in 58) by then very ill decide to return to Cyprus to spend his final days. He bought this house - not because it was cheap or GC but simply because it met the criteria he had for a house here and was on the market. After my father died the house passed to me and my brother and it is where I now live and have lived for last 2.5 years.

So come a settlement should the house be demolished and the land returned to the original pre 74 GC owner? Should my brother and myself recieve no compensation for this regardless of the money (cash sterling) my father paid for it? Should we get the land in the south lost by the orginal TC owner of the land who was given in return for this lost land? If so should we compensated for any difference in value between this land with a house on in and much money invested in it and the land in the south that presumably has no house on it and has no money invested in it in the intervening period? Should we be able to keep the land and house but pay some compensation to the pre 74 GC owner. If so how much compesnation should we pay? What should be the basis for this compenataion.

Further if my brother and I decide to sell this land what then? Should what happens post solution to it be diffeent than if we do not sell it? Different if we sell it to a non Cyupriot but not different if we sell it to a TC?

These are complex issues and not easy to resolve as far as I can see.

*The only part I of this 'history' I am not definat about is wether the land was GC pre 74 and exchanged with a TC for their lost land in the south or if it was TC owned prior to 74. Probability suggests it was GC prior to 74 but I do not know this for sure.

[Realist]

Viewpoint - once again i agree with you that returning to negotiations is essential. But look at it from my angle for a minute: wanting a solution from one side and selling off land that may be part of a solution firstly complicates an already overly complex problem, because you get third parties involved (i.e. British ex pats). This in turn makes me wonder why if the TC authorities want a solution are they making the problem more complex through these actions. Why has there been an increase in the amount of settlers arriving from mainland Turkey over the past few months who are now occupying more GC property. Perhaps I am reading to much into it, but would you not question it?

Bananiot - I think some other Forum members answered your statement about the Annan Plan. I'm not going to repeat what you should already understand by now. All I can say is that if the same criteria were reversed and you had the GC side of the A plan you would have said 'no' as well.

Erolz - I can totally see where your coming from with this issue. And it's definately a tough one there.

[Viewpoint]

Realist I understand where you are coming from and how it can be viewed from your side of the fence, firstly let me address your concerns about settlers, anyone who arrives now is not to included in a settlement so they will have to go as quickly as they arrived, they do not get any GC property has there is none left to allocate, so I would not worry to much about the current influx of settlers which are mainly workers for the building sector. Now Talat/Soyer are introducing new measures to not allow the easy influx of mainland Turks into the north, this is surely a sign that our current leadership is taking steps in the right direction. Their constant call for resumption of talks is another positive indication, being brushed to one side by your side at the moment.
The building boom came directly in line with the Annan plan and as I agree can be seen as intentional move to complicate and apply pressure on the south, its all about economics, the feeling is that if an agreement should arrive, which every one agrees is not in the near future it will be along the lines of the annan plan with adjustments, so developers have banked on this and developed mainly on land which has equivelent in the south, because at the end of the day they feel compensation will come into play and former owners will be compensated (at market rates and not over an elongated period). Thats why I personally feel that time will work against GC property owners because if their land has not already been developed is can be returned with no complications in 2005 but by 2007 2008...2020 a lot more land owners will not have this option. When we have to deal with developed land we have to find alternative formulas to solve the issue, its easy to say lets knock down the building kick the TC out and give land back to GC, we have to be realistic and practicle. An alternative piece of land can be given in the same location or the GC could claim (real) financial compensation pool.
Dont forget that one of the main reasons for the gradual recovery of our economy is down to the boom in the building sector it effects many areas of our economy, which government would want to put a stop to this, alternatives have to be found, one would be tourism but we are not allowed direct fllights, another would be direct trade but we are not allowed to move in this direction, another would be international assistance, but this is also blocked by a combination of political stubborness on both sides.
So losing time in courts all over Europe and not really addressing the real issue its just a time loss and that effort should be used to get your leaders back to the negotiating table.

[Viewpoint]

magikthrill

Here is the letter sent to the SG on 4 June 2004 about the reasons why the A plan did not satisfy the GCs:

magikthrill you are so clever, why couldnt SG, EU, USA, UK, Turkey, Keneddy, Predegast .....the world not see what you have been able to see?? do you think they are all working against Papadop and his "RoC" maybe you should inform them all how stupid they are

[Nickp]

Further if my brother and I decide to sell this land what then? Should what happens post solution to it be diffeent than if we do not sell it? Different if we sell it to a non Cyupriot but not different if we sell it to a TC?

These are complex issues and not easy to resolve as far as I can see.
.

I disagree, i think in your case your situation would be quite simple to resolve as your family are displaced TC's and i'm sure a resonable outcome can be reached through a property court without having to displace your family as you have property in the south that can be reclaimed or compensated for.

I think the issue with TC's living in GC's property is not the problem. TC's are just as much a victim of displacement and lost property as the GC's. Everything can be solved through fair and practicle decisions.

The problem is land and property that has been exploited, e.g. given to mainland settlers and sold to tourists. Like i've said before, you can't expect GC's to give these away free for the sake of a solution. Any decision in regards to these two factors should be fair. It's just a case of assessing each parties want's and needs and making a fair decision.

I'll give you an example. My grandparents who passed away some years ago, have a house in Kumyali with lots of land. The house is being lived in and the land has not been built on. We have no desire to obtain the house back as it's not worth that much and there's no point removing the current occupants if they are happy and settled there. However, in terms of the land that hasn't been built on, this should be handed back + a small compensation for the value of the house. This is one potential case, and you see how simple it's been solved if the TC admin/Turkey are willing to compromise like this.

I disagree with this whole notion that in order to halt the building and selling of GC property the Greek side should allow the north to have direct trade. It's just bad business ethics.

In terms of the south, there's no where near this amount of building on Turkish land and giving TC properties to mainland Greeks or other nationalities for free. In fact, i think GC maintain them to some degree, i.e the mosque in Kophinou is well maintained by the Greeks living there.

[gabaston]

Nickp

Having got the jist of your post I tend to agree, there are fair straight swaps, and unfortunately more complicated ones.
Im sure that Turkey can see the economic sense, of instead of financing 30,000 troops and upholding the Nc economy, they were to compensate the refugees. Im sure that Turkey would find this in her economic interest.

[gabaston]

Nick

im not having a dig, but the Mosque in Kophinou is maintained?
Thats my mother's village and we know what happened there.
Isnt that ironic? but still its a noble and appreciated gesture.

[Nickp]

I was in Kophinou in January, my sister in law has some family there. They've built a restraunt on TC land there as they had lost there home in the North. It was allocated to them by the ROC government.

When i drove in the village the mosque looked very nice and the my sister-in law's aunt did say that they recently fixed the gate that was hanging off and cut the grass, so it looked very pleasant.

It's a nice village kophinou, as i was born post- 1980 i'm not sure what happend prior but i guess village fighting was going on with some other Greek villages.

[erolz]

I think the issue with TC's living in GC's property is not the problem. TC's are just as much a victim of displacement and lost property as the GC's. Everything can be solved through fair and practicle decisions.

Firstly I have no easy answers and am not suggesting any - just posing questions.

My father did not have land in the south pre 74 (he and his family came from zeytinlik / temblos which is in the north. He did have some land there but this passed into other family members hands in the mysterious way this stuff works in Cyprus and neither my brother or me have an title to this land). He bought the land and house from a TC (australian) who built the house and in turn had bought the land from a TC - who I believe did have land in the south that was the basis for the exchange in which he recived the land in the north. It is just this kind of 'chain' that makes the whole issue so complex today.

The problem is land and property that has been exploited, e.g. given to mainland settlers and sold to tourists. Like i've said before, you can't expect GC's to give these away free for the sake of a solution. Any decision in regards to these two factors should be fair. It's just a case of assessing each parties want's and needs and making a fair decision.

Land simply given to people who themselves lost nothing in 74 or prior to it is I believe simpler. Certainly land given to settlers in exchange for nothing should be paid for or returned (though these people should not be abondoned either by TRNC or any future TCCS or Cyprus republic imo). However this also becomes complicated when this land has been sold, though in reality such sales are very rare in my understanding. There is also cases like that of my aunt. She did not have land in the south before 74 (she lived in the south originaly but rented property). However she was awarded points as 'compensation' for the loss of her husband and has lived the same property since 74 that was the form of this compenasation. She too has invested much money and emotion into this house. What of cases like hers. Should the pre 74 GC owners have the right to take back the property. They are, as I understand it, London based GC who have never lived in this house themselves. Would it make a difference if they wished to have the prioperty back to live in vs to rent or vs to sell? Again I do not know. What I do know is this is a very complex situation and there seem no easy answers.

I disagree with this whole notion that in order to halt the building and selling of GC property the Greek side should allow the north to have direct trade. It's just bad business ethics.

I understand your problem with this whole concept. However I fear that the reality is that politicaly Talat simply could not stop the boom in construction and house sales here unless some alternative chance of economic activtey and growth was found to replace it. This might not be fair or right but I believe is a reality. The fact is that money talks and talks loudly. To take on these vested intertests without some alternative 'talking money' is just not going to work as I see it. Talat sionce comming to power has twice propsed measures aimed at slowing down the construction boom and sales to non Cypriots and twice these efforts have failed.

In terms of the south, there's no where near this amount of building on Turkish land and giving TC properties to mainland Greeks or other nationalities for free. In fact, i think GC maintain them to some degree, i.e the mosque in Kophinou is well maintained by the Greeks living there.

No I agree this does not happen in the south to the same extent (though it does happen to some extent) either absolutely or proprtionaly to the sizes of the north and south. Then again the south has not faced the ecnomic restrictions the north has over the last 30 years. You have diretc trade and direct flights. Again this is not supposed to be a justification of the actions here in the north but a (personal) assement of the realites that contibute to this problem.