Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

SInce this property issue has been a heated debate the last few days what do g/c and t/c think about the proposals put fourth by our dear lost friend Alexandors Lordos almost five years ago in his survey:

PS I THINK HIS PROPOSALS IN His plan(which by the way had greek and turks in agreement in his survey on critical issues are some of the best that have every been posted on the forum):


E. Property Rights

On the issue of Property Rights, the Annan Plan proposals are unacceptable to 60%and acceptable to 24% of the Greek Cypriots, while they are acceptable to 60% andunacceptable to 33% of the Turkish Cypriots.

One approach to resolving the Property issue might be exclusively territorial, by reducing the Turkish Cypriot federated state to 18% - 20% of Cyprus, instead of 29%, but in return allowing the Turkish Cypriots to keep all property that would remain within the Turkish Cypriot state,paying monetary compensation to the original owners.
While this proposal would be acceptable to the Turkish Cypriots, by a 28-point margin, it would be unacceptable to the Greek Cypriots by a 15-point margin. While the Turkish Cypriots might like the suggestion that they would not have to deal with Greek Cypriot property claimants within the Turkish Cypriot federated state, the Greek Cypriots do not like the implications of “ethnic purity” and “partition in disguise” which this proposal appears to them to entail.

Another approach to resolving the Property issue, would be to abandon the logic of enforced exchange, and instead acknowledge both the original owner’s right to title,and the current occupant’s right to stay in the property for an agreed period of time while paying rent. In the mean time, individual original owners and individual current occupants would be encouraged to make their own private deals to exchange, purchase or sell the property in question, if they so wish.

Quite surprisingly, the Greek Cypriot public does not feel as positively about this proposal as one would have thought – in fact they are divided, half of the Greek Cypriots accepting it and half of them rejecting it. This might be explained, firstly, as fear that such provisions would not in the end be implemented, that rent would not be paid as agreed, or that the property would not be returned to its owner when the “right
to stay by paying rent” had expired. On a different level, the result might be explained as unwillingness to wait another lengthy period before being allowed to personally use the property. After 30 years living as refugees, Greek Cypriots expect a right to return that would apply immediately, not be deferred for yet another decade.

As for the Turkish Cypriots, this was the least attractive of all the suggested property proposals, with much less support than the equivalent property provisions of the Annan Plan. The reasons are obvious, since with this proposal they would be asked to find the money to pay rent for a property which for many years they have been using
as their own. Furthermore, they may fear that in the long term such a proposal could have devastating effects on the bizonality of the settlement, since if Greek Cypriots prove unwilling to sell their properties in the north, then the Turkish Cypriots would
be hard-pressed to find land in the north on which to build their homes and expand their economy.

The following proposal appears much more attractive for both communities: Original owners would be entitled to the restitution, and immediate use, of all their properties, except those currently inhabited by refugees with property of roughly equivalent value to exchange, and those on which major investment has been made – and for
such properties the original owners would be compensated. If a refugee is not entitled to the restitution of his original home, then he will be entitled to a new home built for him in the same town or village. The construction of these new residences would be partly self-financed through the compensation fund to which current occupants (who would be entitled to keep the property they are using) will contribute, and partly
financed through the assistance of international donors.

This proposal is different to the Annan Plan in three key respects: Firstly, the 1/3rd restriction on property restitution, much despised by Greek Cypriots, has been removed. If a property is not being used by a Turkish Cypriot who can claim it under the above-mentioned criteria, then the original owner can have it returned to him, without quotas or qualifications. Secondly, the right to a new home has been added,
something which the Annan Plan was struggling towards but did not quite achieve. And thirdly, if the Compensation fund fails in the end to balance its books, it will be international donors and not the Cypriot tax-payer who will be asked to cover the difference.

As for acceptability, this proposal is acceptable to the Greek Cypriots by a 13-point margin, and to the Turkish Cypriots by a 29-point margin. This high level of acceptance amongst the Turkish Cypriots is not surprising, since on an individuallevel the average Turkish Cypriot would be entitled to keep exactly the same propertythat he would be keeping under the Annan Plan. It is the Property Board that will begetting less property with this revised scheme, not the average Turkish Cypriot.

A final alternative proposal that was put before respondents, is a variation of the“right to a new home” proposal described above, but with the order of priority reversed. In other words, the original owner would get to keep his original home, while the current occupant will be re-housed in a new home in the same town or village.To this proposal, the Greek Cypriot response was overwhelmingly favourable, with animpressive 57-point lead. This of course was to be expected, since “all refugees t0 return to their homes” has been the constant Greek Cypriot demand since 1974. What is more surprising is the response of the Turkish Cypriots, who also accept thisproposal with a strong 27-point lead. In other words, they see this proposal as on a par with the Annan Plan Property provisions, which also had a 27-point lead among the Turkish Cypriots.

The explanation of this surprising result is in hindsight simple: The Turkish Cypriots would be giving up 30-year old residences, which have already lost much of their value through wear-and-tear, and in their place they will be getting a brand new residence, with new plumbing, new wiring, modern construction, longer effectivehouse life etc. In this way, this proposal becomes a “win-win” suggestion, with the Greek Cypriot original owners returning to the homes of their childhood which tothem carry great emotional significance, and the Turkish Cypriot current occupantsgetting a brand new free-hold residence of equivalent size, in the same town or villageas that in which they are currently residing.

[Expatkiwi]

[quote='boulio']A final alternative proposal that was put before respondents, is a variation of the“right to a new home” proposal described above, but with the order of priority reversed. In other words, the original owner would get to keep his original home, while the current occupant will be re-housed in a new home in the same town or village.To this proposal, the Greek Cypriot response was overwhelmingly favourable, with animpressive 57-point lead. This of course was to be expected, since “all refugees t0 return to their homes” has been the constant Greek Cypriot demand since 1974. What is more surprising is the response of the Turkish Cypriots, who also accept thisproposal with a strong 27-point lead. In other words, they see this proposal as on a par with the Annan Plan Property provisions, which also had a 27-point lead among the Turkish Cypriots.

The explanation of this surprising result is in hindsight simple: The Turkish Cypriots would be giving up 30-year old residences, which have already lost much of their value through wear-and-tear, and in their place they will be getting a brand new residence, with new plumbing, new wiring, modern construction, longer effectivehouse life etc. In this way, this proposal becomes a “win-win” suggestion, with the Greek Cypriot original owners returning to the homes of their childhood which tothem carry great emotional significance, and the Turkish Cypriot current occupantsgetting a brand new free-hold residence of equivalent size, in the same town or villageas that in which they are currently residing.[/quote]

This idea sounds good, but who would be paying for the new houses? and surely the returning Greek Cypriots would want to get his/her place fixed up once they reoccupy...

[boulio]

concerning the g/c i dont think they care in what condition it is in as long as they got it back and can freely use it.concenring the building of new houses at the time of the survey the world was flush with cash(2005)money was easy to obtain and there wold be a fund established with international donorsZ(eu,un,imf,turkey)contributuing.