Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

[Viewpoint]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

You GCs have over developed the south why are you so concerned about over development in the north, is it because you feel all the land is yours or that you are losing out on making millions?

[Viewpoint]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

You GCs have over developed and exploited the south why are you so concerned about over development in the north, is it because you feel all the land is yours or that you are losing out on making millions?

[humanist]

yeap, you got us again VP. We can't hide anything from you.

[zan]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

You GCs have over developed the south why are you so concerned about over development in the north, is it because you feel all the land is yours or that you are losing out on making millions?

You see...They do want us to entertaın THEIR tourısts by doıng tradıtıonal dances for them ın our lıttle enclaves...

[pantheman]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

You GCs have over developed the south why are you so concerned about over development in the north, is it because you feel all the land is yours or that you are losing out on making millions?

You see...They do want us to entertaın THEIR tourısts by doıng tradıtıonal dances for them ın our lıttle enclaves...

Where else do you suggest we keep our little monkeys

[DT.]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

You GCs have over developed the south why are you so concerned about over development in the north, is it because you feel all the land is yours or that you are losing out on making millions?

How the VP mind works....on the post above he says we over developed...but after he posted he thought hmmmmm..

[DT.]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

You GCs have over developed and exploited the south why are you so concerned about over development in the north, is it because you feel all the land is yours or that you are losing out on making millions?

Not enough impact....I know!! lets add exploited as well!!!

how the propaganda machine works.. If he hadn't screwed up and posted it twice all this fabulous work would have stayed behind the scenes.

[Nikitas]

VP ans Zan,

Refer to the decisions of the Spanish authorities to reverse coastal development inorder to INCREASE the value of their investment and then please read carefully my post which stresses how value is increased when SOME parts of the landscape are left in their natural state.

Now let us think, if Ayia Napa in the south had five super luxury hotels and the surrounding area was left as it was in the 50s, would the total revenue brough in by tourism be more or less than now? It would be more, I say, but there should be a way to pay the owners of the surrounding land for not converting it to plots and building it. It is a simple concept but very hard to apply fairly. So people "develop" the land and in the long run lose money.

The above applies to both sides of Cyprus, which inspite of what some people think, is not an overly beautiful island. The Cypriot countryside is actually very ordinary and it PAYS us all to keep the few impressive parts intact. The sand dunes of Karpasia are one such place, Akamas is another. I would have added the Pendadaktylos range but that was buggered up a long time ago.

[zan]

Cem,

The Karpasia issue is confusing. For GCs the term Karpasia refers to the whole peninsula, from Boghazi to the tip is Karpasia. Karpassi is the actual village. From what I gather from TC posts Karpas is the term for the part from the village to the monastery. Safeguarding that part of the peninsula should be simple, the actual tip is curch land, so the property issue is very clear. That part traditionally had three barbed wire fences stretching across the peninsula and they were about a kilometer apart. It is not a lot of land to put aside and it saves at least that area if not more.

The irony in this "development" lark is that the developers themselves KNOW that development to saturation point diminishes the value of the development itself. The whole idea in selling a location is that your building is the only one, or at the most one of very few, and the surrounding country is left in its natural state. But of course no one is willing to pay part of their profits to the people who do not develop their land, so there is no incentive to keep ANY land unspoilt. Which partly explains why very rich people buy whole islands, they build one house and leave the rest alone. The rest of us rely on government who are supposed to keep things in balance. Fat chance! Once the money flows the old Mafia adage holds true: "Find a cash flow and plug in".

You GCs have over developed the south why are you so concerned about over development in the north, is it because you feel all the land is yours or that you are losing out on making millions?

You see...They do want us to entertaın THEIR tourısts by doıng tradıtıonal dances for them ın our lıttle enclaves...

Where else do you suggest we keep our little monkeys

In your pants as you normally do my challenged friend.