Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

I also didn't expect to get the second highest number of votes after Deniz for the IODC something ... but I did! You just underestimate me (like everyone else does! ).

I'm off to do something important now!

I'm sorry... it was meant to be a joke...

That's OK ... I was faking seriousness!

Did you really think I was that insecure to care what anyone thinks? ... but I do make an exception for you I guess

[Get Real!]

I also didn't expect to get the second highest number of votes after Deniz for the IODC something ... but I did! You just underestimate me (like everyone else does! ).

I'm off to do something important now!

I'm sorry... it was meant to be a joke...

That's OK ... I was faking seriousness!

Did you really think I was that insecure to care what anyone thinks? ... but I do make an exception for you I guess

See? I was right to apologise!

[Oracle]

I also didn't expect to get the second highest number of votes after Deniz for the IODC something ... but I did! You just underestimate me (like everyone else does! ).

I'm off to do something important now!

I'm sorry... it was meant to be a joke...

That's OK ... I was faking seriousness!

Did you really think I was that insecure to care what anyone thinks? ... but I do make an exception for you I guess

See? I was right to apologise!

A double-fake, huh!

[YFred]

I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.

I agree...My guess is that since it is the TC side holding more than their share and will eventually have to pay compensation,then it is highly likely that this absurd clause could have been proposed by the TC side.

I take the opposite view. Since the TC negotiating team personally had nothing to lose, as it was Denktases cronies that benefitted from the Cyprus problem, and coupled with the fact that there was no change of guards from the GC side, also taking into account the actual values of land where the Turkish lands in the south were valued much more than the GC lands in the north, It would be more davantages for the GC to suggest it.
But perhaps the real reason it was put there was to shoot the plan in the foot.
So the GC's would vote no.

But someone out there must now who suggested it and is not letting on.

do you care to explain what you base your above claim highlighted in red?

1 donum of Limasol or Larnaka land is worth a lot more than 1 donum of Karpas land. Very simple.
I take it you have no idea who suggested it then?

Yfred
Has it occurred to you that a donum of Karpas land might be worth less (to you) than a donum of Limassol land because of the ongoing situation since 1974?
Do you think this evaluation of yours would be the same had there been no war and seperation in 1974?

In a strange way its payback for the economic pain dished out the the TC's by the GCs since 74. You see some of us don’t buy the victim crap. Although we appreciate and sympathise with the GCs losses in people and livelihoods, the economic suffocation of the TC since 74 means that the TC's have also been the victims. The GCs received all the help from the international community since 74. TC’s hands have been tied to their backs and spoon fed.

I realise that some will always blame the TC for the events, but if you can see it from my prospective. Turkey invaded, GC land distributed to Denktas cronies. The real TC's gained very little. When my father went to the office to do his Esdeger, they offered him 80 donums for his 800. He told them to wrap it in a cylindrical shape and shove it.

Some of his land was taken by the GC's and he got nothing for it in return. There are many many people like that. So when I hear that my land in Bodamya is worth ten times my land in Lurucina. I say good. I want both back, I am not selling.
Forgive me for wanting what the GC'c want. If this agreement does not do it right, then god help us all. I am convinced that it was the GC’s who insisted that this clause was included and it is unforgivable that they used it to kill the annan plan. This is worst than the Akritas fiasco. GCs were led blindly into yet another blind alley.

I am afraid that if you now want to exchange donum for donum one each, you must be joking. I want my lands worth my friend. And if it means I get 10, donums in the north for one in the south, it is only right because that is what its worth, now, plus rent back dated to 74 which the lovely RoC has been collecting on my behalf.

Am I unreasonable?

Say it aint so serpico.

[bill cobbett]

I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.

I agree...My guess is that since it is the TC side holding more than their share and will eventually have to pay compensation,then it is highly likely that this absurd clause could have been proposed by the TC side.

I take the opposite view. Since the TC negotiating team personally had nothing to lose, as it was Denktases cronies that benefitted from the Cyprus problem, and coupled with the fact that there was no change of guards from the GC side, also taking into account the actual values of land where the Turkish lands in the south were valued much more than the GC lands in the north, It would be more davantages for the GC to suggest it.
But perhaps the real reason it was put there was to shoot the plan in the foot.
So the GC's would vote no.

But someone out there must now who suggested it and is not letting on.

do you care to explain what you base your above claim highlighted in red?

1 donum of Limasol or Larnaka land is worth a lot more than 1 donum of Karpas land. Very simple.
I take it you have no idea who suggested it then?

Yfred
Has it occurred to you that a donum of Karpas land might be worth less (to you) than a donum of Limassol land because of the ongoing situation since 1974?
Do you think this evaluation of yours would be the same had there been no war and seperation in 1974?

In a strange way its payback for the economic pain dished out the the TC's by the GCs since 74. You see some of us don’t buy the victim crap. Although we appreciate and sympathise with the GCs losses in people and livelihoods, the economic suffocation of the TC since 74 means that the TC's have also been the victims. The GCs received all the help from the international community since 74. TC’s hands have been tied to their backs and spoon fed.

I realise that some will always blame the TC for the events, but if you can see it from my prospective. Turkey invaded, GC land distributed to Denktas cronies. The real TC's gained very little. When my father went to the office to do his Esdeger, they offered him 80 donums for his 800. He told them to wrap it in a cylindrical shape and shove it.

Some of his land was taken by the GC's and he got nothing for it in return. There are many many people like that. So when I hear that my land in Bodamya is worth ten times my land in Lurucina. I say good. I want both back, I am not selling.
Forgive me for wanting what the GC'c want. If this agreement does not do it right, then god help us all. I am convinced that it was the GC’s who insisted that this clause was included and it is unforgivable that they used it to kill the annan plan. This is worst than the Akritas fiasco. GCs were led blindly into yet another blind alley.

I am afraid that if you now want to exchange donum for donum one each, you must be joking. I want my lands worth my friend. And if it means I get 10, donums in the north for one in the south, it is only right because that is what its worth, now, plus rent back dated to 74 which the lovely RoC has been collecting on my behalf.

Am I unreasonable?

Say it aint so serpico.

Let me repeat this about relative land prices between the Occupied and the Free Areas. It's been touched on above. Prices are cheaper in the Occupied Areas cos, in the main, it's stolen land and you would expect goods off the back of a lorry to be cheaper. If we want to compare prices then we must surely look at land prices in the Occupied North with legitimate pre-74 title which sells at a hefty premium to stolen land. Post-solution (very unlikely I know) surely land prices will equalise. We all know how attractive places like the Karpas would be to developers.

As to Fred's father's holdings in the Free Areas, I'm sure I would not be alone in hoping he gets it back cos he is the rightful owner and that undeniable fact is recognised by the RoC so that if Fred or his father goes to the relevant Land Registry office, they will find it still in their undisputed ownership.

God forbid that we agree to a total compulsory compensation package but if we did then it must be affordable. Compensation at (derisory) 1974 prices is almost certainly affordable but compensation at 2008/9 prices is almost certainly unaffordable. So the question of who suggested the lower level of compensation is not really relevant, monetary circumstances probably dictate this level of foul compensation and further would certainly be a factor in determining the balance between compensation and restitution (restitution costs nothing).

(Lets not forget those without land holdings who became refugees - how are they going to be compensated for the upheaval they suffered and still suffer?)

[YFred]

I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.

I agree...My guess is that since it is the TC side holding more than their share and will eventually have to pay compensation,then it is highly likely that this absurd clause could have been proposed by the TC side.

I take the opposite view. Since the TC negotiating team personally had nothing to lose, as it was Denktases cronies that benefitted from the Cyprus problem, and coupled with the fact that there was no change of guards from the GC side, also taking into account the actual values of land where the Turkish lands in the south were valued much more than the GC lands in the north, It would be more davantages for the GC to suggest it.
But perhaps the real reason it was put there was to shoot the plan in the foot.
So the GC's would vote no.

But someone out there must now who suggested it and is not letting on.

do you care to explain what you base your above claim highlighted in red?

1 donum of Limasol or Larnaka land is worth a lot more than 1 donum of Karpas land. Very simple.
I take it you have no idea who suggested it then?

Yfred
Has it occurred to you that a donum of Karpas land might be worth less (to you) than a donum of Limassol land because of the ongoing situation since 1974?
Do you think this evaluation of yours would be the same had there been no war and seperation in 1974?

In a strange way its payback for the economic pain dished out the the TC's by the GCs since 74. You see some of us don’t buy the victim crap. Although we appreciate and sympathise with the GCs losses in people and livelihoods, the economic suffocation of the TC since 74 means that the TC's have also been the victims. The GCs received all the help from the international community since 74. TC’s hands have been tied to their backs and spoon fed.

I realise that some will always blame the TC for the events, but if you can see it from my prospective. Turkey invaded, GC land distributed to Denktas cronies. The real TC's gained very little. When my father went to the office to do his Esdeger, they offered him 80 donums for his 800. He told them to wrap it in a cylindrical shape and shove it.

Some of his land was taken by the GC's and he got nothing for it in return. There are many many people like that. So when I hear that my land in Bodamya is worth ten times my land in Lurucina. I say good. I want both back, I am not selling.
Forgive me for wanting what the GC'c want. If this agreement does not do it right, then god help us all. I am convinced that it was the GC’s who insisted that this clause was included and it is unforgivable that they used it to kill the annan plan. This is worst than the Akritas fiasco. GCs were led blindly into yet another blind alley.

I am afraid that if you now want to exchange donum for donum one each, you must be joking. I want my lands worth my friend. And if it means I get 10, donums in the north for one in the south, it is only right because that is what its worth, now, plus rent back dated to 74 which the lovely RoC has been collecting on my behalf.

Am I unreasonable?

Say it aint so serpico.

Let me repeat this about relative land prices between the Occupied and the Free Areas. It's been touched on above. Prices are cheaper in the Occupied Areas cos, in the main, it's stolen land and you would expect goods off the back of a lorry to be cheaper. If we want to compare prices then we must surely look at land prices in the Occupied North with legitimate pre-74 title which sells at a hefty premium to stolen land. Post-solution (very unlikely I know) surely land prices will equalise. We all know how attractive places like the Karpas would be to developers.

As to Fred's father's holdings in the Free Areas, I'm sure I would not be alone in hoping he gets it back cos he is the rightful owner and that undeniable fact is recognised by the RoC so that if Fred or his father goes to the relevant Land Registry office, they will find it still in their undisputed ownership.

God forbid that we agree to a total compulsory compensation package but if we did then it must be affordable. Compensation at (derisory) 1974 prices is almost certainly affordable but compensation at 2008/9 prices is almost certainly unaffordable. So the question of who suggested the lower level of compensation is not really relevant, monetary circumstances probably dictate this level of foul compensation and further would certainly be a factor in determining the balance between compensation and restitution (restitution costs nothing).

(Lets not forget those without land holdings who became refugees - how are they going to be compensated for the upheaval they suffered and still suffer?)

I leave that to Talat and team to negotiate, and hope that they find a solution acceptable to both. But this time lets make sure we know who has proposed what, so we can appreciate fully what is going on and who is doing what.
In the last plan, as my family land is not deveopled, I would have expected it to be restored to my family where ever the border was.
Similar clause must be included in the new one.
Was there anything wrong with this clause?