Cyprus-Forum.com

[Gasman]

You are confusing the right to buy vs Already owning a property.

No I am not. I was replying to the statement you made that:

No. All citizens of a country (not just refugees) should have the right to settle wherever they want within their own country with full rights.

You even stressed (not just refugees).

All refugees who are greater or equal to 36 years old were living in their now illegally occupied properties.

Well I know one - a single woman who inherited refugee status from her father - who has never even seen the property she now 'owns'. Her father lived there as a child, then went to the UK well before '74, then moved to South Africa after that and only returned to Cyprus (to live in Limassol) AFTER 1974.

So she is a 'refugee' who has never lived in her 'now illegally occupied' property.

[bill cobbett]

No. All citizens of a country (not just refugees) should have the right to settle wherever they want within their own country with full rights.

I agree with that regarding 'citizens'. However, even in the UK, that is not the case for all citizens.

There are towns and villages in the West Country where it is stipulated that anyone buying a property there must have lived in that town for 3 yrs beforehand. To stop the disintegration of towns and local communities with them turning into 'ghost towns' where most property sits empty most of the year round, owned by people who live in London (or elsewhere) and just want the west country property for a 'holiday' or 'weekend' home.

Because when that happens to places - eventually they lose their local shops and post offices and even schools because not enough 'locals' populate them. And they also run schemes to provide 'affordable housing' to encourage younger locals to remain in situ too (the housing stock having been priced out of the market by incomers from wealthier areas). Where the housing is only available for purchase by people who can prove they've lived there all their lives and who work there and contribute to the society there.

I am just saying it is not unheard of for restrictions to be placed on 'citizens' of a country (regarding their right to buy and or live 'anywhere they want') within that country.

My dear Gaseroulla, as has been said, you my be mixing in the wrong circles. Many others on CF will know and will be related to those who fled their homes before the advancing TA with what they could carry, which was often just their children and many, many of them are still around, and certainly the children are.

As to this matter of an aspect of GB housing policy to which you refer. Am aware of restrictive covenants being placed on NEW housing in some National Park Areas, and applied very selectively for the reasons you give, to dissuade such things as holiday homes, restrictions which don't apply to OLD housing stock, and as you can work out the amount of new housing in National Park areas (which is where these schemes have been discussed) in GB is very, very limited and in any event the conditions aren't, as all can imagine, justified on grounds of dodgy determinations of ethnicity.

Also think we should all have a think about something when it comes to property... something that has been building for years and should have been brought home to all of us by the ECHR decision in Demopoulos et al earlier in the year and in earlier ECHR judgments in the matter of Loizidou.

That is we should imho be thinking of two simple English words, "home" and "ownership". Words which ain't mutually exclusive... and something made so fundamental by the ECHR (rightly or wrongly) that perhaps better as a thread in its own right.

[B25]

You are confusing the right to buy vs Already owning a property.

No I am not. I was replying to the statement you made that:

No. All citizens of a country (not just refugees) should have the right to settle wherever they want within their own country with full rights.

You even stressed (not just refugees).

All refugees who are greater or equal to 36 years old were living in their now illegally occupied properties.

Well I know one - a single woman who inherited refugee status from her father - who has never even seen the property she now 'owns'. Her father lived there as a child, then went to the UK well before '74, then moved to South Africa after that and only returned to Cyprus (to live in Limassol) AFTER 1974.

So she is a 'refugee' who has never lived in her 'now illegally occupied' property.

I didn't make the second 2 comments you state, you are a confused individual. Your shear dislike for anything GC doesn't even let you see who is saying what.

You are playing with words dear gassey and no amount of BS is going to dictate what the original owners want to do with their property.

Like I said, just because I have been prevented to take possession of my property, does not mean I don't own it nor can dispose of it as I wish.

This is the fundamental priciple you need to get into your head.

[Get Real!]

All refugees who are greater or equal to 36 years old were living in their now illegally occupied properties.

Well I know one - a single woman who inherited refugee status from her father - who has never even seen the property she now 'owns'. Her father lived there as a child, then went to the UK well before '74, then moved to South Africa after that and only returned to Cyprus (to live in Limassol) AFTER 1974.

So she is a 'refugee' who has never lived in her 'now illegally occupied' property.

You've met ONE and I know of 185,000 odd that were ethnically cleansed from the illegally occupied territory so what exactly is your point?

[humanist]

People in every other democratic country can pass any property including land to whom ever they choose. Cypriots should be afforded the same democratic right to do as they please with their property and not allow a State based on discrimination and violation of human rights. All Cypriots should have the right of return and be entitled to have their land back with or without an ancestral home on it.

If they then decide they want compensation and let it go the process for that should be there.

[Nikitas]

There is no mention here of those refugees who did not own property in the north. They lost the direction of their lives in a way which can be more destructive than the loss of a piece of land.

As for the property issue, the use or non use is totally irrelevant. The European Charter of Human Rights, which cannot be circumvented, protects ownership and free dealing with property. Devolution as in inheritance etc is also part of the ownership rights.

Therefore, what is relevant here is whether the side that wants Bizonality and Bicommunality, can economically afford to pay for its desired ends. The TCs do not own enough land in the south to settle on an acre for acre exchange basis, nor do they have enough money to pay adequated compensation, even at the ridiculously low scales applied by the illegal Property Commission. So the question is a little out of place.

It also seems that the TCs are not willing to exchange what land they have in the south in an acre for acre deal. That is why they propose setting up the Property Development Corporation to develop TC properties in the south and to participate in the Famagusta rebuilding.

Any objective observer knows what these propposals reveal, no need to elaborate.

[humanist]

There is no mention here of those refugees who did not own property in the north. They lost the direction of their lives in a way which can be more destructive than the loss of a piece of land.

As for the property issue, the use or non use is totally irrelevant. The European Charter of Human Rights, which cannot be circumvented, protects ownership and free dealing with property. Devolution as in inheritance etc is also part of the ownership rights.

Therefore, what is relevant here is whether the side that wants Bizonality and Bicommunality, can economically afford to pay for its desired ends. The TCs do not own enough land in the south to settle on an acre for acre exchange basis, nor do they have enough money to pay adequated compensation, even at the ridiculously low scales applied by the illegal Property Commission. So the question is a little out of place.

It also seems that the TCs are not willing to exchange what land they have in the south in an acre for acre deal. That is why they propose setting up the Property Development Corporation to develop TC properties in the south and to participate in the Famagusta rebuilding.

Any objective observer knows what these propposals reveal, no need to elaborate.

That was well said Nikitas cheers

[Viewpoint]

Everyone should be free to choose which state they wish to reside in and all refugees should be asked whether they want compensation or their property or exchange.

The real issue is governance, there has to be a system whereby the power in each state and at federal level cannot be manipulated to favor either the GCs or the TCs.

[Get Real!]

Everyone should be free to choose which state they wish to reside in...

Are you lot moving to the US?

Alright!

[Oracle]

Everyone should be free to choose which state they wish to reside in...

Are you lot moving to the US?

Alright!

How about a poll to see which State the TCs would best fit in, in good 'ole USA?