Cyprus-Forum.com

[Peterc]

As I understand it, what the TRNC has done is collect deeds from TCs that have land in the south, and given them land in the North of the same size, location etc.

The only way I would imagine a solution being agreed will be if we accept the exchange.

I for one would agree to this land swop especially as I would welcome something, as at the moment I have nothing.

Turkey cannot afford to be paying compensation and the EU and America will support the exchange plan.

It may all be good for the GCs who were not ousted from their homes in '74 to disagree with a solution as they neither gain or lose anything but I would welcome anything back for my family.

[Tony-4497]

humanist wrote:

Perhaps Christofias can ask the people to register their interests if they don't want to return, but are willing to accept compensation, this will allow a bit of willing negotiation form individuals and hence bother leaders have land mass to play with.

It is impossible for anyone to make such a decision unless they know how much they would get for their property.

My belief is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for GC property owners to be compensated at MARKET VALUE for their properties - and this will be the main obstacle for solving the Cyprus problem.

GCs owned some 85% of land in the north, much of it by the sea. The Market Value of this is many tens of billions of Euros, whereas the international aid pack, even back in 2004 (i.e. no crisis), was only a few hundred million.

It is for this reason that the AP, instead of current Market Value, talked about 1974 prices (i.e. peanuts) plus some inflation rate. And, adding salt to injury, also provided for the compensation to be paid by GCs (i.e. the federal state which would be 100% funded by GCs)!!

Unltimately, when you cut through all the bullshit, the Cy problem boils down to a case of good old robbery and land grab of a significant chunk of a country i.e. the 18% population, which owned some 15% of land wants to have 30% of land.. so even after any exchange, SOMEONE has to PAY for the 15% of Cyprus - ANYONE who tries to do this will go bankrupt!

I think you are ignoring part of this equation, though, which is the market value of the Turkish Cypriot owned property in the south. If you look at Limassol alone, and consider the location of the projected marina, the current market value of the old Turkish Cypriot quarter of that city must be very high indeed.

I am not.. I mentioned that even AFTER exchange, someone will have to pay for around 15% of the land of Cyprus (i.e. TCs own 15% but want to own around 30% post-solution, without paying anything).

I agree that the marina area will be valuable, but that is tiny compared to the coastline that TCs want to aqcuire (for free) in the projected TC component state.

[Tim Drayton]

humanist wrote:

Perhaps Christofias can ask the people to register their interests if they don't want to return, but are willing to accept compensation, this will allow a bit of willing negotiation form individuals and hence bother leaders have land mass to play with.

It is impossible for anyone to make such a decision unless they know how much they would get for their property.

My belief is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for GC property owners to be compensated at MARKET VALUE for their properties - and this will be the main obstacle for solving the Cyprus problem.

GCs owned some 85% of land in the north, much of it by the sea. The Market Value of this is many tens of billions of Euros, whereas the international aid pack, even back in 2004 (i.e. no crisis), was only a few hundred million.

It is for this reason that the AP, instead of current Market Value, talked about 1974 prices (i.e. peanuts) plus some inflation rate. And, adding salt to injury, also provided for the compensation to be paid by GCs (i.e. the federal state which would be 100% funded by GCs)!!

Unltimately, when you cut through all the bullshit, the Cy problem boils down to a case of good old robbery and land grab of a significant chunk of a country i.e. the 18% population, which owned some 15% of land wants to have 30% of land.. so even after any exchange, SOMEONE has to PAY for the 15% of Cyprus - ANYONE who tries to do this will go bankrupt!

I think you are ignoring part of this equation, though, which is the market value of the Turkish Cypriot owned property in the south. If you look at Limassol alone, and consider the location of the projected marina, the current market value of the old Turkish Cypriot quarter of that city must be very high indeed.

I am not.. I mentioned that even AFTER exchange, someone will have to pay for around 15% of the land of Cyprus (i.e. TCs own 15% but want to own around 30% post-solution, without paying anything).

I agree that the marina area will be valuable, but that is tiny compared to the coastline that TCs want to aqcuire (for free) in the projected TC component state.

OK, I take your point. However, if you look at things through the impassionate eyes of a bean counter, if somebody pays the market price for an asset and then has that asset on their balance sheet, I see no basis for them going bankrupt.

[Tony-4497]

As I understand it, what the TRNC has done is collect deeds from TCs that have land in the south, and given them land in the North of the same size, location etc.

The only way I would imagine a solution being agreed will be if we accept the exchange.

I for one would agree to this land swop especially as I would welcome something, as at the moment I have nothing.

Turkey cannot afford to be paying compensation and the EU and America will support the exchange plan.

It may all be good for the GCs who were not ousted from their homes in '74 to disagree with a solution as they neither gain or lose anything but I would welcome anything back for my family.

Oh, I see.. so all the TCs and Anatolian settlers to whom the Annan Plan was granting property rights (i.e. the same rights the plan was taking away from the legal GC owners) had equivalent properties in the non-occupied areas... I must have missed that..

I think you should write a note to the community leaders and the UN - they have been wasting huge amounts of time on this issue, whereas all that has to happen is for the exchange of properties achieved by the "TRNC" (whatever this is..?) to be recognised.. and hey presto, problem solved!!

And presumably, the area of the new TC component state will be around 15% of Cyprus (because this is roughly the proportion owned by TCs and has hence been exchanged).. is that right?

[Tony-4497]

humanist wrote:

Perhaps Christofias can ask the people to register their interests if they don't want to return, but are willing to accept compensation, this will allow a bit of willing negotiation form individuals and hence bother leaders have land mass to play with.

It is impossible for anyone to make such a decision unless they know how much they would get for their property.

My belief is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for GC property owners to be compensated at MARKET VALUE for their properties - and this will be the main obstacle for solving the Cyprus problem.

GCs owned some 85% of land in the north, much of it by the sea. The Market Value of this is many tens of billions of Euros, whereas the international aid pack, even back in 2004 (i.e. no crisis), was only a few hundred million.

It is for this reason that the AP, instead of current Market Value, talked about 1974 prices (i.e. peanuts) plus some inflation rate. And, adding salt to injury, also provided for the compensation to be paid by GCs (i.e. the federal state which would be 100% funded by GCs)!!

Unltimately, when you cut through all the bullshit, the Cy problem boils down to a case of good old robbery and land grab of a significant chunk of a country i.e. the 18% population, which owned some 15% of land wants to have 30% of land.. so even after any exchange, SOMEONE has to PAY for the 15% of Cyprus - ANYONE who tries to do this will go bankrupt!

I think you are ignoring part of this equation, though, which is the market value of the Turkish Cypriot owned property in the south. If you look at Limassol alone, and consider the location of the projected marina, the current market value of the old Turkish Cypriot quarter of that city must be very high indeed.

I am not.. I mentioned that even AFTER exchange, someone will have to pay for around 15% of the land of Cyprus (i.e. TCs own 15% but want to own around 30% post-solution, without paying anything).

I agree that the marina area will be valuable, but that is tiny compared to the coastline that TCs want to aqcuire (for free) in the projected TC component state.

OK, I take your point. However, if you look at things through the impassionate eyes of a bean counter, if somebody pays the market price for an asset and then has that asset on their balance sheet, I see no basis for them going bankrupt.

The entity whose balance sheet you are referring to will not have acquired any asset - it will simply have provided a gift (accounted for through the P&L, causing a huge loss) to the commission that would subsequently compensate the property owners who will lose their rights.

Under the Annan Plan, that entity would have been the United RoC and projections showed that its deficit would have jumped from near zero to double digits (which would have also disqualified us from joining the Euro).

And that was on the basis that refugees would be compensated NOT immediately (because that would have meant TOTAL collapse of the Cyprus economy) but through bonds maturing in some 20 YEARS!

i.e. for, say, your seafront property in Kyrenia, of which Market Value (based on RoC) prices, is say Euro 2m per donnum, you would get
- 1974 prices plus some inflation (maybe Euro 50k per donnum),
- this would be paid to you after 20 years; and
- you would effectively be paying this money to yourself, because compensation would come from the United RoC, 100% funded by GC taxpayers.

And then foreigners wonder why GCs voted NO!

[Tim Drayton]

humanist wrote:

Perhaps Christofias can ask the people to register their interests if they don't want to return, but are willing to accept compensation, this will allow a bit of willing negotiation form individuals and hence bother leaders have land mass to play with.

It is impossible for anyone to make such a decision unless they know how much they would get for their property.

My belief is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for GC property owners to be compensated at MARKET VALUE for their properties - and this will be the main obstacle for solving the Cyprus problem.

GCs owned some 85% of land in the north, much of it by the sea. The Market Value of this is many tens of billions of Euros, whereas the international aid pack, even back in 2004 (i.e. no crisis), was only a few hundred million.

It is for this reason that the AP, instead of current Market Value, talked about 1974 prices (i.e. peanuts) plus some inflation rate. And, adding salt to injury, also provided for the compensation to be paid by GCs (i.e. the federal state which would be 100% funded by GCs)!!

Unltimately, when you cut through all the bullshit, the Cy problem boils down to a case of good old robbery and land grab of a significant chunk of a country i.e. the 18% population, which owned some 15% of land wants to have 30% of land.. so even after any exchange, SOMEONE has to PAY for the 15% of Cyprus - ANYONE who tries to do this will go bankrupt!

I think you are ignoring part of this equation, though, which is the market value of the Turkish Cypriot owned property in the south. If you look at Limassol alone, and consider the location of the projected marina, the current market value of the old Turkish Cypriot quarter of that city must be very high indeed.

I am not.. I mentioned that even AFTER exchange, someone will have to pay for around 15% of the land of Cyprus (i.e. TCs own 15% but want to own around 30% post-solution, without paying anything).

I agree that the marina area will be valuable, but that is tiny compared to the coastline that TCs want to aqcuire (for free) in the projected TC component state.

OK, I take your point. However, if you look at things through the impassionate eyes of a bean counter, if somebody pays the market price for an asset and then has that asset on their balance sheet, I see no basis for them going bankrupt.

The entity whose balance sheet you are referring to will not have acquired any asset - it will simply have provided a gift (accounted for through the P&L, causing a huge loss) to the commission that would subsequently compensate the property owners who will lose their rights.

Under the Annan Plan, that entity would have been the United RoC and projections showed that its deficit would have jumped from near zero to double digits (which would have also disqualified us from joining the Euro).

And that was on the basis that refugees would be compensated NOT immediately (because that would have meant TOTAL collapse of the Cyprus economy) but through bonds maturing in some 20 YEARS!

i.e. for, say, your seafront property in Kyrenia, of which Market Value (based on RoC) prices, is say Euro 2m per donnum, you would get
- 1974 prices plus some inflation (maybe Euro 50k per donnum),
- this would be paid to you in 20 years; and
- you would effectively be paying this money to yourself, because compensation would come from the United RoC, 100% funded by GCs

And then foreigners wonder why GCs voted NO!

Just for the sake of argument, let us say that Turkey underwrites the whole deal. An independent commission fixes the fair market value of this property, everybody gets paid what it is worth, Turkey forks out the balance after the value of Turkish Cypriot owned property is set off against Greek Cypriot owned property, and gets to keep the property it has paid for. Is that a done deal (hypothetically speaking)?

[Tony-4497]

humanist wrote:

Perhaps Christofias can ask the people to register their interests if they don't want to return, but are willing to accept compensation, this will allow a bit of willing negotiation form individuals and hence bother leaders have land mass to play with.

It is impossible for anyone to make such a decision unless they know how much they would get for their property.

My belief is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for GC property owners to be compensated at MARKET VALUE for their properties - and this will be the main obstacle for solving the Cyprus problem.

GCs owned some 85% of land in the north, much of it by the sea. The Market Value of this is many tens of billions of Euros, whereas the international aid pack, even back in 2004 (i.e. no crisis), was only a few hundred million.

It is for this reason that the AP, instead of current Market Value, talked about 1974 prices (i.e. peanuts) plus some inflation rate. And, adding salt to injury, also provided for the compensation to be paid by GCs (i.e. the federal state which would be 100% funded by GCs)!!

Unltimately, when you cut through all the bullshit, the Cy problem boils down to a case of good old robbery and land grab of a significant chunk of a country i.e. the 18% population, which owned some 15% of land wants to have 30% of land.. so even after any exchange, SOMEONE has to PAY for the 15% of Cyprus - ANYONE who tries to do this will go bankrupt!

I think you are ignoring part of this equation, though, which is the market value of the Turkish Cypriot owned property in the south. If you look at Limassol alone, and consider the location of the projected marina, the current market value of the old Turkish Cypriot quarter of that city must be very high indeed.

I am not.. I mentioned that even AFTER exchange, someone will have to pay for around 15% of the land of Cyprus (i.e. TCs own 15% but want to own around 30% post-solution, without paying anything).

I agree that the marina area will be valuable, but that is tiny compared to the coastline that TCs want to aqcuire (for free) in the projected TC component state.

OK, I take your point. However, if you look at things through the impassionate eyes of a bean counter, if somebody pays the market price for an asset and then has that asset on their balance sheet, I see no basis for them going bankrupt.

The entity whose balance sheet you are referring to will not have acquired any asset - it will simply have provided a gift (accounted for through the P&L, causing a huge loss) to the commission that would subsequently compensate the property owners who will lose their rights.

Under the Annan Plan, that entity would have been the United RoC and projections showed that its deficit would have jumped from near zero to double digits (which would have also disqualified us from joining the Euro).

And that was on the basis that refugees would be compensated NOT immediately (because that would have meant TOTAL collapse of the Cyprus economy) but through bonds maturing in some 20 YEARS!

i.e. for, say, your seafront property in Kyrenia, of which Market Value (based on RoC) prices, is say Euro 2m per donnum, you would get
- 1974 prices plus some inflation (maybe Euro 50k per donnum),
- this would be paid to you in 20 years; and
- you would effectively be paying this money to yourself, because compensation would come from the United RoC, 100% funded by GCs

And then foreigners wonder why GCs voted NO!

Just for the sake of argument, let us say that Turkey underwrites the whole deal. An independent commission fixes the fair market value of this property, everybody gets paid what it is worth, Turkey forks out the balance after the value of Turkish Cypriot owned property is set off against Greek Cypriot owned property, and gets to keep the property it has paid for. Is that a done deal (hypothetically speaking)?

There is no way an owner will "trust" this independent commission to come up with a market value, because (in any hypothetical scenario) Turkish economy would COLLAPSE if there was a need to pay a lump sum amount of several tens of billions of Euros (such a payment would risk bringing down the US economy, never mind the Turkish one).

Accordingly, the ONLY safeguard an owner could accept is the OPTION i.e. this independent commission offers him the choice of accepting a specific amount, OR a specific property in the GC state, OR keeping his property.

IF the other options ARE indeed MARKET VALUE, then a reasonable GC would probably prefer to accept them instead of keeping his property in the TC state (as his current life is in the south).

However, the above CANNOT happen, because it would simply COST TOO MUCH and no one is prepared or able to pay the bill - and hence a solution to the Cyprus problem cannot be found.

The only way forward is for TCs to reduce their demands to % of land closer to their ownership (20 to 23% max), hence being able to offer the above choice to GCs.

[Peterc]

As I understand it, what the TRNC has done is collect deeds from TCs that have land in the south, and given them land in the North of the same size, location etc.

The only way I would imagine a solution being agreed will be if we accept the exchange.

I for one would agree to this land swop especially as I would welcome something, as at the moment I have nothing.

Turkey cannot afford to be paying compensation and the EU and America will support the exchange plan.

It may all be good for the GCs who were not ousted from their homes in '74 to disagree with a solution as they neither gain or lose anything but I would welcome anything back for my family.

Oh, I see.. so all the TCs and Anatolian settlers to whom the Annan Plan was granting property rights (i.e. the same rights the plan was taking away from the legal GC owners) had equivalent properties in the non-occupied areas... I must have missed that..

I think you should write a note to the community leaders and the UN - they have been wasting huge amounts of time on this issue, whereas all that has to happen is for the exchange of properties achieved by the "TRNC" (whatever this is..?) to be recognised.. and hey presto, problem solved!!

And presumably, the area of the new TC component state will be around 15% of Cyprus (because this is roughly the proportion owned by TCs and has hence been exchanged).. is that right?

Perhaps you need to face the facts, historically you will note that Turkey never gives back what it takes. As Turkey is an American pet it is in a position of strength! If you believe that Turkey will smile and say sorry to you and give back what you believe is rightly yours, your either kidding yourself or have your head buried in the sand. If it is true that the TCs who have land in the south have exchanged this for land in the North then this will have to be a condition. Whether we like it or not. With regards to the settlers unfortunately they are here and the governments need to work this out. AGAIN WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!
Finally, leave out the sarcasm, its not nessassary or cute!

[Peterc]

necessary*

[Tony-4497]

As I understand it, what the TRNC has done is collect deeds from TCs that have land in the south, and given them land in the North of the same size, location etc.

The only way I would imagine a solution being agreed will be if we accept the exchange.

I for one would agree to this land swop especially as I would welcome something, as at the moment I have nothing.

Turkey cannot afford to be paying compensation and the EU and America will support the exchange plan.

It may all be good for the GCs who were not ousted from their homes in '74 to disagree with a solution as they neither gain or lose anything but I would welcome anything back for my family.

Oh, I see.. so all the TCs and Anatolian settlers to whom the Annan Plan was granting property rights (i.e. the same rights the plan was taking away from the legal GC owners) had equivalent properties in the non-occupied areas... I must have missed that..

I think you should write a note to the community leaders and the UN - they have been wasting huge amounts of time on this issue, whereas all that has to happen is for the exchange of properties achieved by the "TRNC" (whatever this is..?) to be recognised.. and hey presto, problem solved!!

And presumably, the area of the new TC component state will be around 15% of Cyprus (because this is roughly the proportion owned by TCs and has hence been exchanged).. is that right?

Perhaps you need to face the facts, historically you will note that Turkey never gives back what it takes. As Turkey is an American pet it is in a position of strength! If you believe that Turkey will smile and say sorry to you and give back what you believe is rightly yours, your either kidding yourself or have your head buried in the sand. If it is true that the TCs who have land in the south have exchanged this for land in the North then this will have to be a condition. Whether we like it or not. With regards to the settlers unfortunately they are here and the governments need to work this out. AGAIN WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!
Finally, leave out the sarcasm, its not nessassary or cute!

I too have property in the occupied areas (in fact, it was, in theory, due to be returned under the AP) and I of course want a solution to be found.

My comments relate to how a REALISTIC formula can be found for the property issue. I am not suggesting that Turkey will simply take its troops and settlers away and hand back all she has stolen.

However, if you believe that provisions SIMILAR to those in the Annan plan have ANY chance of being accepted, then it is you who has the head buried in the sand.

If you want a solution, as you say, you should appreciate that a BBF is unlikely to pass a GC referendum in ANY case, as it is fundamentally unfair on GCs. If, however, the solution ALSO violates the PRIVATE human right of ownership, then it has NO chance of passing (as per AP).

This would be bad for GCs, as they would not get anything back (at least in the short-term), and it would be even worse for Turkey, as it would be unable to join the EU and fulfill its potential.

The only chance a (borderline) Yes from BOTH sides can be achieved at referendum is if:
- The area of the TC component state is reduced to 20-23% of Cyprus, hence allowing more of a concentration of TC;
- Offering the CHOICE of compensation, exchange and continuation of ownership to GC property owners, with the former 2 being at MARKET rates, hence ensuring that most will indeed accept these
- The above 2 factors will ensure that TCs will have majority of population and property ownership in their component state, while keeping enough GCs happy to get the solution passed and the solution cost at a doable level.

The above would also make the overall solution feel more "fair", as the 18% TCs would end up with a piece of land closer to their population %.