Alexandros Lordos wrote:You are right Kifeas ... unfortunately any proposal that aims to "apportion the burden equally" is not likely to go down well in our ... less than angelic society. For instance, did you know that the 1/3rd provision in the Annan Plan had partly the meaning of ensuring that all refugees would get an equal proportion of their property back? For instance, if all of refugee X's properties were unavailable, and if all of refugee Y's properties were available, then Y would only get a third and X would have the right to select something from Y's property until he also reached his quota of 1/3rd. Whereas if we remove the 1/3rd restriction, as seems to be the popular demand, then refugee X will get nothing and refugee Y will get everything.
So really, the only suggestion I could have made that would have led to a fairer treatment of Kyrenians etc. would have been ... the Annan Plan! But we have already rejected that, therefore we reject the "communist logic" of solidarity and adopt the more capitalist logic "each one to his own". That's the sad truth. The least we can do is ensure that, as a minimum, every refugee gets a home in his town or village, preferably his own home. What he gets of the rest of his property ... that will really be a matter of luck. Some will get everything else as well, some will get nothing else, depending on who is currently using the property and what rights he has.
As for compensation, I don't believe the risks involved should burden either the Cypriot state or the individual refugees. Instead, all related loans should be guaranteed by third parties.
I perfectly understand the point you make Alexandros. However, although in the case of A-plan VI there was indeed this 1/3 provision, which theoretically would guarantee that at least each refugee would get the same proportion from his property, there were some other provisions in the plan that would have rented nearly all GC Kyrenian’s 1/3 property return, practically impossible. Not even an alternative property within the same village or even in the same area (I am referring to all the Kyrenia area north of the mountain range,) would have been available for a 1/3 return. This is not an arbitrary assumption that I make but a conclusion based on the result of small survey of some 50 different families originating from Kyrenia town and the rest of the villages north of the mountain. This was based on questions like, what and where their property is located, who is currently occupying (using) their properties, and to what extend they were developed by either TCs originating from the south or subsequent buyers, (other TCs or foreigners,) and comparing each ones situation with the provisions (conditions in favour of current occupiers or developers,) as they were laid out in the A-plan.
Those who did not visit this area, as well as the area extending from Famagusta old city until all the way north -up to Bogazi village, do not understand the magnitude of the development that took place even before the referendums, and which is still taking place now. It has nearly occurred in almost every single GC property that is located in these areas. And here we are talking about the most expensive land of Cyprus. It was the most expensive land before 1974, it is by far the most expensive land in the north at the moment, and will be the most expensive land of the entire Cyprus, 24 hours after the solution. The value of GC properties in these two areas, when put together, equate the total value of the remaining GC properties in the rest of the occupied areas and certainly surpass, alone, the total value of all TC properties left in the south after 1974.
I strongly suggest and argue that not only 1/3 of GC properties (on the total) will not be returned from these areas, but I also doubt whether even 5% of them (on the total) will be reinstated in these areas, if the conditions of A-plan-VI were to be applied. Now, how will the GC Kyrenians be accommodated? Will for example my 1/3 allowance from my Lapithos property be given to me in let’s say Dikomo (Dikmen) village -south on the mountain? Thank you very much! The value of one donum of land north of the mountain, equates the value of at least 6-7 donums of land south of the mountain. The same is true about all the north of Famagusta coastline versus the inner Mesaoria plane.
In a nutshell, this 1/3 provision did not even guarantee an equal distribution of the burden among all the GC refugees with properties in the areas that would remain under TC state control, after territorial adjustments. However, when I spoke about equal distribution of the burden, I was referring to the entire Cypriot population -refugees and non-refugees -and not only an equal distribution of the burden among refugees from the areas that will remain under TC control, which as I suggested above, would not have been the case either. After all, the referendum was and /or will be carried out by all GCs, irrespective of the degree to which it affects them or not, on an individual level.
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:49 pm
