Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Some squatters have got in to an empty house in Victoria worth 6 million pounds through an open window (In the Mrs Abrahamovic neighborhood). No Breaking and entering was involved. The owners are going to court to try to get it back. It will be interesting to see what happens. The squatters when interviewed were not worried about the court. Judging by their behavior, they seem to know the law.
What is criminal in the roc is the fact that you as an eu citizen who left cyprus long before 74 paid all your taxes and are unable to get possession of your land. How can you take the roc seriously when there are so blatantly racist and criminal in their behavior.

What lofty aspirations YFred. Aligning yourself with squatters, people who occupy someone else's property. Easy to see your lack of simple morals and integrity. You then try to excuse this with ridiculous accusations against the RoC - you really are a sad case.

Otherwise known as a carpetbagger…

The search for the perfectly valid excuse for theft continues - can't wait for the next installment.

What makes you think that I support them. Did I make such claim. I am simply putting the information in front of you. You can choose to turn your back on it, but don't be surprised when it kicks you in the but.
The notion of possession is 90 percent of the law is valid. In the final agreement a percentage of land will be given back to roc, another percentage of land will be given back to the GCs but under trnc , and a further percentage will be decided by the possession rule. What the hell do you think they were discussing on the property issue. If a GC owns a piece of land worth 10000 pounds and a TC spent 200000 on it to build the house, you try an take it away from him after 35 years. This is not child's play in a play ground but practical politics. Word of advice, before you take his house, you better arrange for good security.
Do you seriously think that you will be able to take the land off a TC who has occupied it for 35 years and has land in the south which has been taken by the roc.
All this discussion is for nothing anyway, due to the stupidity of Muhtar X who wasted 14 months playing tiddly winks instead of getting into substantive issues.

[denizaksulu]

deniz - the north is not ruled by Turkey - if a currency tells you who rules in a country then:
Does the EU rule Britain - no as they use pounds as primary currency
Does the EU rule France - yes they use Euros as primary currency
Does the EU rule Cyprus - yes they use Euros as primary currency
Obviously ludicrous.
- The utility of the Euro by "nation state" is based on monetary considerations and management by the ECB.
There is democracy in the North, if the people do not want Turkey involved then they can vote them out. Note, the polls are not suggesting a departure from Turkey but a moving closer. It is the will of the people it is democracy, what our neighbours keep insisting it tantamount.

You know what I am talking about. Keep on playing the 'ignorant'.

[Kikapu]

If a GC owns a piece of land worth 10000 pounds and a TC spent 200000 on it to build the house, you try an take it away from him after 35 years.
.

The chances are, the land is going to be worth more than the house built on it, so, is the TC who spent 50,000 pounds building a house on a land that is worth 200,000 now, is going to pay the GC land owner the 200,000 which would make the TCs net investment to 250,000, or do you expect the GC to let the TC profit the 200,000 instead.??

[Talisker]

Some squatters have got in to an empty house in Victoria worth 6 million pounds through an open window (In the Mrs Abrahamovic neighborhood). No Breaking and entering was involved. The owners are going to court to try to get it back. It will be interesting to see what happens. The squatters when interviewed were not worried about the court. Judging by their behavior, they seem to know the law.
What is criminal in the roc is the fact that you as an eu citizen who left cyprus long before 74 paid all your taxes and are unable to get possession of your land. How can you take the roc seriously when there are so blatantly racist and criminal in their behavior.

What lofty aspirations YFred. Aligning yourself with squatters, people who occupy someone else's property. Easy to see your lack of simple morals and integrity. You then try to excuse this with ridiculous accusations against the RoC - you really are a sad case.

Otherwise known as a carpetbagger…

The search for the perfectly valid excuse for theft continues - can't wait for the next installment.

What makes you think that I support them. Did I make such claim. I am simply putting the information in front of you. You can choose to turn your back on it, but don't be surprised when it kicks you in the but.
The notion of possession is 90 percent of the law is valid. In the final agreement a percentage of land will be given back to roc, another percentage of land will be given back to the GCs but under trnc , and a further percentage will be decided by the possession rule. What the hell do you think they were discussing on the property issue. If a GC owns a piece of land worth 10000 pounds and a TC spent 200000 on it to build the house, you try an take it away from him after 35 years. This is not child's play in a play ground but practical politics. Word of advice, before you take his house, you better arrange for good security.
Do you seriously think that you will be able to take the land off a TC who has occupied it for 35 years and has land in the south which has been taken by the roc.
All this discussion is for nothing anyway, due to the stupidity of Muhtar X who wasted 14 months playing tiddly winks instead of getting into substantive issues.

Threats to reinforce the thefts. Good going YFred, just digging a deeper hole for yourself.......

[Nikitas]

Been away for a while but I see that the forum is steaming along in the same spirit as always.

YFred as always is talking about land values etc, and how the TC will not want to relinquish "valuable" land in the north etc.

An as always he forgets that the really valuable property on Cyprus is that which is in or around business centers, ie Nicosia, Limassol, Larnaca and Paphos, in effect in the south. TCs who own land in or around these places are the first who do not want to let go of it. The problem as presented by YFred and others, and by most of the media is that the major factor in the properties issue is the desire of GCs to regain their land in the north. Reality will assert itself when it is clear that the majority of property claims will be from TCs who will want to maintain their title to land in the south, where the money and high rents are.

For the TC onwers of land in Limassol, Larnaca and Paphos the development of the last 35 years has been the quintessential process of unearned income growth. They will surely want to cash in, and cash in this case is not the pittance planned by the properties commission. Cash is what the market will provide. And cash in Euro to boot!

[YFred]

Some squatters have got in to an empty house in Victoria worth 6 million pounds through an open window (In the Mrs Abrahamovic neighborhood). No Breaking and entering was involved. The owners are going to court to try to get it back. It will be interesting to see what happens. The squatters when interviewed were not worried about the court. Judging by their behavior, they seem to know the law.
What is criminal in the roc is the fact that you as an eu citizen who left cyprus long before 74 paid all your taxes and are unable to get possession of your land. How can you take the roc seriously when there are so blatantly racist and criminal in their behavior.

What lofty aspirations YFred. Aligning yourself with squatters, people who occupy someone else's property. Easy to see your lack of simple morals and integrity. You then try to excuse this with ridiculous accusations against the RoC - you really are a sad case.

Otherwise known as a carpetbagger…

The search for the perfectly valid excuse for theft continues - can't wait for the next installment.

What makes you think that I support them. Did I make such claim. I am simply putting the information in front of you. You can choose to turn your back on it, but don't be surprised when it kicks you in the but.
The notion of possession is 90 percent of the law is valid. In the final agreement a percentage of land will be given back to roc, another percentage of land will be given back to the GCs but under trnc , and a further percentage will be decided by the possession rule. What the hell do you think they were discussing on the property issue. If a GC owns a piece of land worth 10000 pounds and a TC spent 200000 on it to build the house, you try an take it away from him after 35 years. This is not child's play in a play ground but practical politics. Word of advice, before you take his house, you better arrange for good security.
Do you seriously think that you will be able to take the land off a TC who has occupied it for 35 years and has land in the south which has been taken by the roc.
All this discussion is for nothing anyway, due to the stupidity of Muhtar X who wasted 14 months playing tiddly winks instead of getting into substantive issues.

Threats to reinforce the thefts. Good going YFred, just digging a deeper hole for yourself.......

The hole was dug by the roc for 35 years. If we dig any further, we may strike oil.

[Viewpoint]

If a GC owns a piece of land worth 10000 pounds and a TC spent 200000 on it to build the house, you try an take it away from him after 35 years.
.

The chances are, the land is going to be worth more than the house built on it, so, is the TC who spent 50,000 pounds building a house on a land that is worth 200,000 now, is going to pay the GC land owner the 200,000 which would make the TCs net investment to 250,000, or do you expect the GC to let the TC profit the 200,000 instead.??

This is Kikapu logic for you, the land inceases in value and the house remains the same....typical one sided viewpoint.

[Viewpoint]

Are there any TC schools in the south?

[Oracle]

Are there any TC schools in the south?

Have you paid for any?

[Kikapu]

If a GC owns a piece of land worth 10000 pounds and a TC spent 200000 on it to build the house, you try an take it away from him after 35 years.
.

The chances are, the land is going to be worth more than the house built on it, so, is the TC who spent 50,000 pounds building a house on a land that is worth 200,000 now, is going to pay the GC land owner the 200,000 which would make the TCs net investment to 250,000, or do you expect the GC to let the TC profit the 200,000 instead.??

This is Kikapu logic for you, the land inceases in value and the house remains the same....typical one sided viewpoint.

In many cases, the land value is higher than the structure sitting on it, if it's a single family home. I'm sure not many spent 200,000 pounds 35 years ago to build a single family home on a land value at 10,000 pounds.!

In any case, you claim your house is not built on GC land, so don't worry about what the land under your house is worth. If it's GC land, be prepared to pay through the nose if you want to keep living in that house after a settlement.!