The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


First Results of Bicommunal Poll

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby turkcyp » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:44 pm

deleted by the author...
Last edited by turkcyp on Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby Kifeas » Sun Jun 12, 2005 8:30 am

Alexandros Lordos wrote:
Kifeas wrote:Furthermore, the value gap between pre-1974 property ownership and post solution property acquisition based on A-plan provisions, of total GC versus total TC property, was estimated by the most moderate studies and assumptions to be around 20 billion dollars in current prices and in favour of the TC community. Not only the TC community, as a whole or on an individual case basis, would not have been able to raise this amount, even in the next 100 years, but I seriously doubt that there is any international third party(s) that would dare guarantee such a huge amount. In the end, those who would suffer most of this damage will be the GC refugees and more particularly those 50 or so thousand people who are originating or having properties in the Kyrenia and Famagusta areas that I referred above.


Kifeas, I hear you. Is there something better than you can suggest?


Alexandros, Thanks for hearing me. :)
What I didn't hear is whether you accept that the picture is as dramatic and totally unfair as I painted it, or you feel that I am just exaggerating so that I justify my negative opinion on the A-plan. :wink:

Anyhow, I am preparing some tables in order to show how the property situation would have been under A-plan-VI and how much better it would be under an alternative approach that I worked out.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Viewpoint » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:29 am

Kifeas
Anyhow, I am preparing some tables in order to show how the property situation would have been under A-plan-VI and how much better it would be under an alternative approach that I worked out.


for whom? GCs TCs or everyone???

are all sides aware from what we are reading and seeing there appears to be no restart of talks in the near future so any talk of revising the Annan 5 is pointless. The status quo has firmly set in and will continue until something gives, change in administrarion in the south, USA UK UN EU take further steps towards removing of isolation on north.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:16 pm

Kifeas wrote:What I didn't hear is whether you accept that the picture is as dramatic and totally unfair as I painted it, or you feel that I am just exaggerating so that I justify my negative opinion on the A-plan. :wink:


I also have a very negative opinion of the Annan Plan property provisions. It was not so much unfair in the sense of refugee-to-refugee comparison, because the 1/3rd system was going to smooth over the inequalities (if it ever worked, which I seriously doubt), but it was extremely unfair in the GC - TC comparison, because through the Property Board, and through the same 1/3rd restriction, ex-GC properties would have been donated for peanuts to TCs and settlers.

As well as unfair, it was very dangerous in that the shock of an unprecedented level of financial transactions - in combination with the restrictions imposed on property purchasing in the north - would have embolized the Cypriot economy, which would have collapsed within months or at most a few years.

One way to make the system more fair would have been to start with the logic that any GC property for which current occupants cannot offer exchange (in terms of value rather than square meters), goes to the property board, which then redistributes this land to GCs in proportion to the land they owned before 1974. This is terribly complicated however, and I don't think GCs as a whole would approve of such an "egaliterian" system.

Generally though, by making the system fairer in the GC - TC comparison, in one way or another, the financial dangers would also be reduced since much fewer transactions will need to take place, and any transactions that do take place will be backed by real collateral.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:16 pm

deleted
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:56 pm

MicAtCyp wrote:Alexandre,

I have some thoughts about the criteria, I shall revet after I think of them again.


OK, in the mean time here are my own thoughts.

I think we can talk about the general criteria, and then about the specific criteria.

As for general criteria, exceptions to restitution should apply according to one of two categories:

a. The current occupant has equivalent property to exchange in the other constituent state.
b. The current occupant has made siginificant investment to the property in question.

I do not believe length of stay in a property should be a criterion (as the Annan Plan suggested), nor should the economic condition of the current occupants be a criterion (i.e. if they are poor or not). Going down such roads would in essense favor the settlers and allow them to stay in GC properties, causing a massive backlash amongst GC public opinion.

Criterion A can be justified by the requirement that a bizonal-bicommunal Federation should be the end result. If you do not allow exchange of equivalent property, then you can no longer talk of a TC constituent state.

Criterion B can be justified by the requirement to maintain the stability of the TC local economy. If you start taking away invested properties from their current users, you are uprooting the infrastructure of the economy.

Now, going into the specifics, a lot of issues arise.

- What exactly do we mean by "equivalent property in the other constituent state". Is that in terms of square meters or calculated value, taking into account location etc.? At this point the question arises: When the "point-system" was introduced by Denktash, how was equivalency calculated? If it was calculated incorrectly, e.g. not in accordance with value as well, then we will have a reaction by TCs who will complain that they have to give back something which they thought they would have been allowed to keep.

- What do we do in the case where a non-Cypriot (European tourist or Turkish Settler) has bought property from a TC, which TC was using this property in place of his original property in the south? Will the non-Cypriot also be entitled to exchange the property, keeping the property in the north and giving in return the property in the south, or will the original owner take precedence in such a case?

- In the case of invested properies, the issue is a lot more murky. There is no doubt that plots of land where public works have been done (airports, roads, hospitals etc.) will remain with the current user (the constituent state authorities, usually) in return for compensation, but what about:
a) Plots of GC land on which a TC has built his home?
b) Plots of GC land on which a non-Cypriot has built a home?
c) Plots of GC land on which a TC has built a business?
d) Plots of GC land on which a non-Cypriot has built a business?
d) Plots of GC land on which a block of apartments have been built?
e) GC homes which have been substantially renovated by a TC?
f) GC homes which have been substantially renovated by a non-Cypriot?

- Another question: Should our options be limited to restitution Vs compensation, or should there be the option of leasing/renting a property as well? If so, under which criteria will the "right to rent" (but not "right to buy") apply?

- and my final question, what do we do about properties which belonged to GC corporations before 1974? Or properties which belonged to the Church? Will the same rules of restitution apply as for private citizens?

These are my first thoughts and questions on this matter ...
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby magikthrill » Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:44 pm

Here's a question I pose to all TCs and GCs on this forum:

Would there be a problem if Turkey was to compensate all refugees that will not be allowed to return or those who will have a home built in their town?
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby gabaston » Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:16 pm

once vacated tc property has been taken into account then compensation should be agreed -
only problem is what is tc land - figures range from 18% to 35%

One poster recently suggested that annan plan was a farce - well evrything in cyprus from independance onwards has been a farce, as the above figures suggest.
User avatar
gabaston
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:11 pm

Postby Kifeas » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:12 pm

gabaston wrote:once vacated tc property has been taken into account then compensation should be agreed -
only problem is what is tc land - figures range from 18% to 35%

One poster recently suggested that annan plan was a farce - well evrything in cyprus from independance onwards has been a farce, as the above figures suggest.


Gabaston!
Today is Sunday! It seems that today is the day you either like to dream or to say jocks.
Who said to you that the turkish land in Cyprus is from 18% - 35%?

The total TC land ownership (including evkaf ) is equal to 1,134 sq. kms. Some 553 sq. kms from this amount are situated in the occupied areas, some 531 in the south and 50 sq. kms are situated in the british bases and in the buffer zone. The total area of Cyprus is equal to 9,251 sq. kms. Do your maths and you will find out what is the percentage of the TC land.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby gabaston » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:17 pm

kifeas

thanks for letting me know its sunday, but the jock's on you.

i am talking about tc land ownership at idependance 1960. what does pythagoras say about that?
User avatar
gabaston
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest