Good evening Alexandre.
Like I said before both the owner and the user have rights. Now following your request we are supposed to define the extend of these rights and set criteria for the fate of those properties that presumably will satisfy the sense of justice of both owner and user, as would eventually be done by any court. Having thought about it very hard, my criteria is ONLY ONE and SIMPLE. (Or is it not so simple after all? )
Here are the 3 main categories of properties and my criterion for each:
1. Empty and unused properties: returned immediately to the owner to do whatever he likes with them or go settle there.
2. Used agricultural land/bussiness premises . The user rights derive from the fact that he makes a living out of it. First option for rent/ buy/ exchange goes to the user.
3. Houses. The case of a house is different because it relates to the meaning of "home" . Here we do not only have the rights of owner - user but also responsibilities of the CY - state or others (in the case of settlers the responsibility of Turkey) . What I am absolutely sure it cannot be done is to throw a user out. Here again the right to buy/rent/exchange goes to the user.
So in the end as you can see, I give priority to buy/rent/exchange to the current users except for the cases that the land is not used, or it is empty. This however does not mean that each and everyone who will have this priority will necessarily proceed this way. There are many reasons for that. A basic reason is why should anyone pay for a property that is at least 30 years old and not pay something more to built a brand new one? Why should anyone chose to rent (money gone wasted) and not pay to buy something if he can afford.
So if we consider that a new house needs about 1 year to be built it is obvious that some refugees will return to their own houses after about a year. (If they want to) Combine that with the number of refugees that could return to their empty lands and built a house there, I beleive every GC refugee who really wants to return he will be able to do so wiithin a maximum of 2 years. Like I said in previous posts I will never expect more than 20 - 25% to return under TC administration anyway - even in the long run.
So having these basic criterion set out, lets look at some of the details regarding it's application and perhaps set the sub - criteria:
1) The majority of GC land that was empty or unused before 1974 remains unused and empty until today. Therefore many GC refugees could go settle there built a house or do whatever they like if they want.
2) Renting/exchanging/buying: Renting of a property today costs between 7. 5 - 10% of the value of the property annually. The percentage can be set by the state and be based on the value of the property re - evaluated every 2 years. Exchanging must be on a value - basis and any difference be payable through loans.
It is certain that we will have problems regarding the values of properties in cases of buying/exchanging. Would it be fair to ask the TC to pay according to the prices prevailing today at the free areas? Would it be fair to exchange according to the high values of the free areas and the low vallues currently in the northern part? The answer is no. So what should we do? Like I said previously I beleive a good part of those cases will be settled anyway by the individuals themselves. What about the rest who would not agree? I have the following suggestion:
Suppose both the owener and the user want to sell/buy but cannot agree on the price. The TC user says this property costs 20K here the owner says in the free areas it costs 60K so I have reasons to beleive in the next few years the property will cost 60K here too.
In this case the only solution for both buyer and user is to become co - owners of an unknown value property after the buyer pays the lower of the two amounts (in this case the 20K) . This co - ownership agreement will be valid for about 10 years and the value of the property and thus the ownership percentage for each will be fixed at the 10th year (when the values of properties will presumably settle) . If in the end the value of the property will be 60K indeed and in the meantimne the buyer did not pay any other amount he will be required to pay rent for 2/3rd of the property for 10 years just to have 33% of the ownership rights or the owner pay him back his 20K less the rent rights and regain full ownership.
A similar co - partnership process is the only solution I can think of, in case of exchanges, where the value of exchanges is not agreed.
3) Criteria for settlers (who will be allowed to stay) : The same criteria as any other Cypriot. No other criteria can be set because after a solution those people will be equal citizens. Obviously they will not be able to exchange anything. . .
4) Foreigners who bought GC properties: These people cannot be justified on grounds of necessity or force majeure. They knew all along what they were doing, and in the end they will lose it all or come to an agreement with the owner. Some people think they will lose it all. I don't think so. The free market works better! Lets see an example: A foreigner bought a villa build on GC land. The value of the land at current prices in the free areas is 60K and that of the building 80K total 140K. He paid only 80K. If the owner insists to get his land back the foreigner will pay 1K demolition costs and return to the owner an empty land worth 60K. (In this case the foreigner will lose 80K that he already paid+1K demolition costs. If however he offers the owner 80K for his land (instead of 60K that it actually worths) he will most propably have a deal and be left with a house worth 140K whereas he paid 160K, thus he will lose only 20K and still be left with a villa of his own. In this way both owner and foreign buyer come out winners!! See what the free enterprise can do? It can also work in another way. The foreigner says, what the hell I don't want to pay anything more, just give me 40K and take your land together with the villa back without me demolishing it. Deal again! In any case it is obvious that the foreigner will lose at a range of 20 - 50% of what they paid.
Now lets come to the matter of poor TC/GC refugees and settlers who use houses that cannot buy or rent. (For agricultural and bussiness properties they MUST pay rent otherwise they are deprived of them since they make profit and there cannnot be any excuse for not paying) . For the settlers it is the responsibility of Turkey to provide them new housing. For poor GC and TC the responsibility of CY - State to do so (propably with foreign aid) and in the meantime the owner be paid rent.
************************
Now after setting my SINGLE criteria and the sub criteria regarding a) the rent b) the value of properties for buying or exchanging, lets see your suggestions to see if we agree:
Alexandros wrote:
As for general criteria, exceptions to restitution
should apply according to one of two categories:
a. The current occupant has equivalent property to
exchange in the other constituent state.
b. The current occupant has made siginificant investment
to the property in question.
I understand you are trying to "create" a percentage of GC refugees who can be restituted.
I think we (GCs) have this false notion that the GC refugees will return to their old houses. For this to happen the current occupants must be housed somewhere else. This will take a long time. We also have another false notion, that when we talk about properties we mean only a house. It is not only a house, the majority of GC properties are agricultural and empty land. The way I see it GC refugees can only return on their own empty lands in the short run, where they themselves will build a house. Their old houses is another story that will take yeaaars to settle. Some will be able to return to their old houses though, as the current user will rather built a new house than pay for the old one.
While I don't disagree with your criteria "a" and "b" on the other hand I beleive the only hope to avoid discrimination and unjustices is to enlarge that set so much that in the end we will all lose truck and yet not be sure we covered everything. One example I can give is someone who was propertyless before 1974 (thus has nothing to exchange) but now is a millionaire who wants to buy the property his old mother is using. I beleive the only factor that can take care of such complicated financial matters is ONLY the forces of the free market. These will make everyone settle to what his needs are and to what he can afford. So these conditions are what will enable people to return to their properties and not any forced rules. One may say the TCs are poor how can they float over this? The answer is simple: They will have the first choice of what to do. They will have their own properties back (whereas the GCs will be in que) . And they will see their economic power increasing day after day contrary to that of the GCs. In the end it's not a matter of antagonism between rich and poor, it is a matter of each one getting back (propert wise) what he deserves nothing more nothing less. And whatever antagonism is going to be is between them and the GC refugees who are the most poor among the GC population.
wrote: I do not believe length of stay in a property should be
a criterion (as the Annan Plan suggested) , nor should
the economic condition of the current occupants be a
criterion (i. e. if they are poor or not) . Going down
such roads would in essense favor the settlers and allow
them to stay in GC properties, causing a massive
backlash amongst GC public opinion.
The settlers who will stay will be equal Cypriots, lets not forget that. Like I said for these people Turkey has responsibility and if Turkey really "cares for her people" - like they say all the time - she should take up her responsibility for them. After that it is the responsibility of the CY - State to take care of those people and take them upto the stanndard of the rest of the society.
On the matter of length of stay: I don't agree with what the Anan Plan said either, on the other hand however - whatever the length of stay - every human has a "home". The meaning of a home is different than that of a house/building. Lets say "home=nest". In this respect nobody can throw anyone out without providing him some options. In case he is poor the only option is for the state to provide him another "nest" for which he will pay a small amount according to his income.
wrote: Criterion A can be justified by the requirement that a
bizonal - bicommunal Federation should be the end result.
If you do not allow exchange of equivalent property,
then you can no longer talk of a TC constituent state.
Criterion B can be justified by the requirement to
maintain the stability of the TC local economy. If you
start taking away invested properties from their current
users, you are uprooting the infrastructure of the
economy.
I agree.
wrote: - What exactly do we mean by "equivalent property in the
other constituent state". Is that in terms of square
meters or calculated value, taking into account location
etc. ? At this point the question arises: When the
"point - system" was introduced by Denktash, how was
equivalency calculated? If it was calculated
incorrectly, e. g. not in accordance with value as well,
then we will have a reaction by TCs who will complain
that they have to give back something which they thought
they would have been allowed to keep.
The point system of Denktash was wrong. As an example see the case of Kifeas. A shepperd with 6 donums in Akoursos (? ) worth of nothing, got 6 donums of Kifeas land in Lapithos by the sea worthing a million. In my opinion ALL TCs know they got something much - much better/valuable, that is why they are so prompt for an agreed division even on an 18 - 82% basis. Anyway the exchange MUST be on value - wise basis. You wouldn’t exchange a diamond with a pearl would you?
Yes there will be problems but no solution can favor anyone on the expense of the other. This is not the real meaning of compromise.
wrote: - What do we do in the case where a non - Cypriot
(European tourist or Turkish Settler) has bought
property from a TC, which TC was using this property in
place of his original property in the south? Will the
non - Cypriot also be entitled to exchange the property,
keeping the property in the north and giving in return
the property in the south, or will the original owner
take precedence in such a case?
The answer about Europeans is definetely NO. There is no justifying reason of force majeure or necessity behind. The original owner takes full ownership back. About the settlers thats a more complicated issue. It becomes simple if Turkey accepts her responsibilities for those people at least regarding their housing needs.
wrote: - In the case of invested properies, the issue is a lot
more murky. There is no doubt that plots of land where
public works have been done (airports, roads, hospitals
etc. ) will remain with the current user (the constituent
state authorities, usually) in return for compensation,
but what about:
a) Plots of GC land on which a TC has built his home?
b) Plots of GC land on which a non - Cypriot has built a
home?
c) Plots of GC land on which a TC has built a business?
d) Plots of GC land on which a non - Cypriot has built a
business?
d) Plots of GC land on which a block of apartments have
been built?
e) GC homes which have been substantially renovated by a
TC?
f) GC homes which have been substantially renovated by a
non - Cypriot?
Properties for public use are compensatable.
The only option for empty land that was invested or built up by TCs is to buy the land either through agreement or through the co - partnership 10 year contract that I mentioned (in case the price is not agreed) . Foreigners will eventually lose part of their money but NOT ALL. The forces of the market will prove this
wrote: - and my final question, what do we do about properties
which belonged to GC corporations before 1974? Or
properties which belonged to the Church? Will the same
rules of restitution apply as for private citizens?
Most propably properties been used by Corporations are also being used by corporations now. The same procedure should apply as with properties of individuals. Church properties. Same procedure as per individuals. I don't think anyone would be willing to pay 3 million for a church to use it as dancing hall, so in the end all churches go back to the priests. Empty land also goes back to them, invested land or built up same procedure as per individuals.
***********************************
Alex, in the end my criteria are very simple. Current user can chose and has priority over his choice. Thereafter the power of free market takes over and arranges everything. And there are ways to settle disagreements on money or values even between the most stuborn donkies or goats.
On the other hand i beleive complicated criteria, and "manipulations" to ensure a certain high or low percentage of people to return are by themselves risky, unpredictable, and will in many cases cause injustice and discrimination, if not bloodshed.
****************
Now obviously we can continue the discussion in parallel.You may expand your multiple criteria and subcriteria and I will comment/criticise on them .And you comment/criticise spot the weaknesses of my the single criteria approach.It will be interesting to see where we will end up in the end.
