Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Of course all refugees should be given the option to their property but in some cases we all have to be realistic and accept current day compensation to buy elsewhere.

A refugee must have the final say. That's the law.

If you think that 200 refugee houses are going to be demolished just because a TC wants their land back you are very mistaken, there will be cases where compensation will be the solution.

... sure, if the refugee accepts.

Would he really have an option, we all have to be realistic, a 40million dollar invest ment is hardly going to be torn down when there are other options available to compensate the refugee.

[Malapapa]

Of course all refugees should be given the option to their property but in some cases we all have to be realistic and accept current day compensation to buy elsewhere.

A refugee must have the final say. That's the law.

If you think that 200 refugee houses are going to be demolished just because a TC wants their land back you are very mistaken, there will be cases where compensation will be the solution.

... sure, if the refugee accepts.

Would he really have an option, we all have to be realistic, a 40million dollar invest ment is hardly going to be torn down when there are other options available to compensate the refugee.

Let's hope, for the sake of the 40 million dollar investors, the option the refugee is offered, is one he will be prepared to accept.

[Viewpoint]

Of course all refugees should be given the option to their property but in some cases we all have to be realistic and accept current day compensation to buy elsewhere.

A refugee must have the final say. That's the law.

If you think that 200 refugee houses are going to be demolished just because a TC wants their land back you are very mistaken, there will be cases where compensation will be the solution.

... sure, if the refugee accepts.

Would he really have an option, we all have to be realistic, a 40million dollar invest ment is hardly going to be torn down when there are other options available to compensate the refugee.

Let's hope, for the sake of the 40 million dollar investors, the option the refugee is offered, is one he will be prepared to accept.

So you would feel it ok for the refugee should have the right to have the investment knocked down?

[Malapapa]

Let's hope, for the sake of the 40 million dollar investors, the option the refugee is offered, is one he will be prepared to accept.

So you would feel it ok for the refugee should have the right to have the investment knocked down?

I'd hope the investors would want to protect their investment by making the refugee an offer he simply can't refuse. But failing that, all investments come with an element of risk, and these risks are magnified if a development is constructed on land without the owner's permission.

[Gasman]

all investments come with an element of risk

Correct. And some investments are riskier than others. Usually those where the returns on your investment look better than other (safer) options.

[Viewpoint]

Let's hope, for the sake of the 40 million dollar investors, the option the refugee is offered, is one he will be prepared to accept.

So you would feel it ok for the refugee should have the right to have the investment knocked down?

I'd hope the investors would want to protect their investment by making the refugee an offer he simply can't refuse. But failing that, all investments come with an element of risk, and these risks are magnified if a development is constructed on land without the owner's permission.

Anyone with an investment will not go without a fight so imho in some cases the refugee will have to be persuaded to take alternative property or payment.

[boulio]

dont be so sure the investers are not greek cypriots.

be careful of greek bearing gifts or gifts bearing greeks

why are yo such a greekophobe vp?

[Malapapa]

Let's hope, for the sake of the 40 million dollar investors, the option the refugee is offered, is one he will be prepared to accept.

So you would feel it ok for the refugee should have the right to have the investment knocked down?

I'd hope the investors would want to protect their investment by making the refugee an offer he simply can't refuse. But failing that, all investments come with an element of risk, and these risks are magnified if a development is constructed on land without the owner's permission.

Anyone with an investment will not go without a fight

I don't think fighting's a good idea - they'll lose. Hell hath no fury than a proud refugee usurped from his ancestral land.

so imho in some cases the refugee will have to be persuaded to take alternative property or payment.

Indeed. Their offer had better be very persuasive.

[erolz3]

A refugee must have the final say. That's the law.

Actually it is far from clear that there is no circumstance under which a state can legally compulsory purchase property from a private indivdual in order to assign the rights to that property to another indivdual.

The principal behind compulsory purchase is that of greater good to society as a whole. This is obviosuly easier to show when compulsory purchase of private property for a public use is the case but to the best of my knowledge the laws on compulsory purchase do not prohibit its uses unless its for a 'public' project. It seems to me it it is well within the realms of possibility that in exceptional cases compulsary purchase of private land even for non public uses afterwards is not impossible.

And there are cases ,realtively few in number its true, where the RoC compulsory purchased TC land to assign freehold title of it to other private individuals. This may or may not be legal. What definately is not legal and imo would never hold up in the ECHR is the money paid for compulsory purchase of land being witheld from the owner 'pending a settlement in Cyprus' though this currently is the situation in the RoC where TC land has been compulsary purchased either for 'public' projects or for reasignment of title to private indivduals.

[DT.]

A refugee must have the final say. That's the law.

Actually it is far from clear that there is no circumstance under which a state can legally compulsory purchase property from a private indivdual in order to assign the rights to that property to another indivdual.

The principal behind compulsory purchase is that of greater good to society as a whole. This is obviosuly easier to show when compulsory purchase of private property for a public use is the case but to the best of my knowledge the laws on compulsory purchase do not prohibit its uses unless its for a 'public' project. It seems to me it it is well within the realms of possibility that in exceptional cases compulsary purchase of private land even for non public uses afterwards is not impossible.

And there are cases ,realtively few in number its true, where the RoC compulsory purchased TC land to assign freehold title of it to other private individuals. This may or may not be legal. What definately is not legal and imo would never hold up in the ECHR is the money paid for compulsory purchase of land being witheld from the owner 'pending a settlement in Cyprus' though this currently is the situation in the RoC where TC land has been compulsary purchased either for 'public' projects or for reasignment of title to private indivduals.

Erolz you do realise your entire theory rests on this line:

It seems to me it it is well within the realms of possibility that in exceptional cases compulsary purchase of private land even for non public uses afterwards is not impossible.

SO whats more possible? That compulsory purchases by the "trnc" for a Turkish mafia guy wishing to build a casino won't be found legal or that it will be?

BTW you lef out the words "maybe" and there's a small chance" in that sentence of caveats.