Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

A weird situation, indeed. I've read the whole article but nothing mentioned abt why the real owner of the house departed his house in 1977 while it was in TC controlled area. On the other hand, this house stayed abandoned until year 2000 and then allocated to another man. In the article nothing is mentioned abt the second owner being a TC or settler.

Not weird at all. After 74, Denktash put out lots of rumours that the village will be left to the GC's. Villagers not wanting to lose out on being able to exchange a good deal, decided to abandon their village and moved to Lisi. Approx 500 stayed. The ones who left, were forced to esdeger so that they could claim greek property. Once you esdegered your property, then you lost all rights to your own one. That’s how I understand it anyway, but I am sure a local man will tell us one way or another.
Good old D and old that.
Halil get your work colleague to explain it. He can write Turkish, English and Greek. Typical Lurucadi eh.

You may take the boy out of Lurucina but never Lurucina out of the boy.
We have our own traitors.

I didn't know that village rumoured to be left to GC administration.

Don't let her sweet greekness hear about this, she'll want me to prove it!

[Nikitas]

Compensation exchange and restitution, all sounds really neat and tidy.

What idiot thinks that TCs who own land around Limassol, Paphos and Larnaca will want to give it away when they can keep ownership of it? Go on, put your hand up and tell us why a man who owns land worth hundreds of thousands of Euro per acre will want to exchange it with a dump in Karpasia or Lefka.

The problem dear friends will not be mostly GCs who want their land back, but TCs who will not want to relinquish their valuable real estate in the south. Real estate that has value beyond that which tourism brings to the land. Value which is gained via the commercial and therefore more viable development around the land, like in the case of land near ports, airports, industrial parks etc.

How is Talat going to convice these TCs to give away their land at 1974 values? Will these people be tricked, swindled, threatened? Because volutarily I do not see it happening.

[halil]

How majority of the TC's said Yes to AP . There was almost same ideas . There is no problem from the TC's side .(Compensation, Exchange and Restitution).

Bi-zonal ,Bi-communal federation idea is very strong in TC's . to do this system there must be Compensation, Exchange and Restitution all of it in the agreements.

[Get Real!]

Bi-zonal ,Bi-communal federation idea is very strong in TC's .

You don't say...

[halil]

A weird situation, indeed. I've read the whole article but nothing mentioned abt why the real owner of the house departed his house in 1977 while it was in TC controlled area. On the other hand, this house stayed abandoned until year 2000 and then allocated to another man. In the article nothing is mentioned abt the second owner being a TC or settler.

Insan ,
seconed owner was also TC man from same village . This man never had any house before 74 .he was sitting always someone homes as rent or so on .... when the above man gave his kochans to goverment he did get some EŞDEĞER from his house .He did not use it and he applied to goverment to get his home back . Now he got it back and the man who was staying his home started to built up his own home in Lurijına now . I got this information today from his village people .

[halil]

Bi-zonal ,Bi-communal federation idea is very strong in TC's .

You don't say...

i always said above saying but not the way you thinking .

once more again for u what we are saying .Bi-zonal ,Bi-communal federation with single citizenship and guarantees of Turkey .

(for me it is not important if it is called compound states ,communities or constituent states or founders)

[Kikapu]

Compensation exchange and restitution, all sounds really neat and tidy.

What idiot thinks that TCs who own land around Limassol, Paphos and Larnaca will want to give it away when they can keep ownership of it? Go on, put your hand up and tell us why a man who owns land worth hundreds of thousands of Euro per acre will want to exchange it with a dump in Karpasia or Lefka.

The problem dear friends will not be mostly GCs who want their land back, but TCs who will not want to relinquish their valuable real estate in the south. Real estate that has value beyond that which tourism brings to the land. Value which is gained via the commercial and therefore more viable development around the land, like in the case of land near ports, airports, industrial parks etc.

How is Talat going to convice these TCs to give away their land at 1974 values? Will these people be tricked, swindled, threatened? Because volutarily I do not see it happening.

Are they still talking about compensation at 1974 prices.?

But there are 4 times more property left behind by the GC's in the north than the TC's in the south, so which 25% of the GC's along with 100%TC refugees will get the 1974 prices so that they can both cancel each other out and which remaining 75% of the GC's refugees will get today's market prices.?

I can see a riot starting over this.!

[halil]

A weird situation, indeed. I've read the whole article but nothing mentioned abt why the real owner of the house departed his house in 1977 while it was in TC controlled area. On the other hand, this house stayed abandoned until year 2000 and then allocated to another man. In the article nothing is mentioned abt the second owner being a TC or settler.

Not weird at all. After 74, Denktash put out lots of rumours that the village will be left to the GC's. Villagers not wanting to lose out on being able to exchange a good deal, decided to abandon their village and moved to Lisi. Approx 500 stayed. The ones who left, were forced to esdeger so that they could claim greek property. Once you esdegered your property, then you lost all rights to your own one. That’s how I understand it anyway, but I am sure a local man will tell us one way or another.
Good old D and old that.
Halil get your work colleague to explain it. He can write Turkish, English and Greek. Typical Lurucadi eh.

You may take the boy out of Lurucina but never Lurucina out of the boy.
We have our own traitors.

I didn't know that village rumoured to be left to GC administration.

Don't let her sweet greekness hear about this, she'll want me to prove it!

It was in the list in 1985 .

YFred my friend is on holiday now as u know schools are on holiday too . next week we will be together . He is still studies Greek . Your older brother he is very active man he signs at communal music group also he is very active at bi-communal peace activity groups also i know him very well .

[Nikitas]

Kikapu,

This property issue is probably the most serious aspect of the settlement because it hit everyone right where they hurt most- their pocket.

Assuming that the participation in any scheme will be voluntary, and I do not see how it can be lawful and in accord with EU and Council of Europe norms if it is not, then people will have the choice whether to exchange their property or not. Even if there is an interim regulation of residence in each component state, this would not affect the property issue. Mr X might not have the right to reside in the north and Mr Y in the south but they can own property in both places.

The erroneous assumption behind the properties issue is that it is the GCs who will want to retain their land in the north. No one as yet has discussed the reverse possibility, that it might be the TCs who will not want to let go of ownership of their land in the south.

Trying to figure out a simple yet effective way to settle this issue is a headache.

If it needs to start somewhere then that must be in the raffirmation of all pre 1974 titles. Logically it cannot start anywhere else, even if it is only to figure out compensation for those who cannot physically repossess their lands, ie because they have been used for public works. Recognising 1974 titles is also a prerequisite to avoiding double dipping.

Then comes the system of exchange, compensation, restitution. Which group gets priority? Again logically it is those that want restitution and by definition this changes the nature of land holding patterns across the island and also affects values and influences what the rest will want.

If for instance a large enough number of TCs declare they want restitution of their land in Limassol this will affect their TC neighbors who might have been thinking of compensation.

It seems that the EU and the decisions of the ECHR impose a revision of the view of Bizonality that Mr Talat and some others have. Bizonal in his view means moving all TC people and their rights to the north, and assumes that is what the majority of TCs will want. I want to see if that actually turns out to be a fact and how the choice is affected by the presence of settlers in the north.

[CopperLine]

I think Nikitas is right in this last post. Property is clearly a major difficulty for any negotiated settlement but it would still have to comply with EU and CoE norms as he says.

I also think that Nikitas is right in highlighting the need for a prioritising or at least sequencing of remedy. For example, phase one creating a common centralised title/deed database; phase two, restitution claims settled; phase three, compensation claims. In my view, even just three phases would take no less than ten years to complete.