Cyprus-Forum.com

[fi]

Absolutely their is a dedicated service that safeguards TC property in ROC, unlike what happens in the occupied north.

[Viewpoint]

fi

Absolutely their is a dedicated service that safeguards TC property in ROC, unlike what happens in the occupied north.

Wouldnt make such a general statement, a lot of TCs land around limassol has been used for housing both for refugees and for sale....We had another example of the airport and a man who has had a factory built on his...

[erolz]

Erol,

Judging by the comments of TC's in the forum, it seems that you have been sold on this story that we treat TC properties in the south in the same way that GC properties are treated in the north.

I am of the understanding that you have treated SOME of the TC former properties in the south in the same way as the reverse (and this includes some properties lost by TC in 63/64 as well as 74 as I understand it)

The some is the crucial word here imo. It allows TC to percieve 'hyprocrasy' in GC claims imo and undermines the RoC position to some degree.

The Guardian of TC properties was set up in the mid 80's I think. Prior to that, TC land was used for refugee housing as there was a dire need for this - where would 200000 refugees be put in the meantime?

But as I understand it some former TC properties in the south have not just been used as a matter of necessity and expidency - but have been effectively 'stolen' in their entirity - despite the laws of the RoC and with apparently little 'concern' or desire on the part of the RoC to persue such illegalites and rectify them.

And yes, in the chaotic years after the invasion some land was probably misused which is why the guardian of TC properties was set up in order to put a stop to exploitation of land and property and to establish the true ownership of the land in anticipation of a solution.

And yes through necessity and inevitablity and poltical perspective foemer GC land has been misued in the north - and the proposals to set up a guradian property board in the north would have the same objectives to stop this explitation and establish true ownership in anticipation of a solution. Yes we are doing this later than you did it, but surely this is a case of 'better late than never' and should be welocmed by GC?

[fi]

It is late!!! 30 years late!!!! It's not good after Turkey has been cornered by european courts etc. to say that it's going to start protecting GC properties.

Let me assure you that I want and will do anything to protect TC properties same as GC properties, only wish that TC would think the same.

[fi]

A note: from what I see on this forum the GC clearly say themselves their wrongdoings no matter how small, the TC on the other hand always come back with a you've done it too responce (even if it's a bit fabricated or tiny)

[Kifeas]

But as I understand it some former TC properties in the south have not just been used as a matter of necessity and expidency - but have been effectively 'stolen' in their entirity - despite the laws of the RoC and with apparently little 'concern' or desire on the part of the RoC to persue such illegalites and rectify them.

I think you do not know what you are talking about Erol!

What do you mean they "have been effectively 'stolen' in their entirety"?

Land cannot be stolen in a physical sense, i.e., hidden in someone’s pocket and then carried away in order to be sold or utilised secretly! When we are talking about GC stolen properties in the north, we simply mean that the "state" and /or the current user (occupier,) assume it's ownership and act accordingly upon this assumption. Trading it further down with the exchange of money, build inside and sell houses, mortgaged it in banks, etc. In other words, doing things on the basis of this ownership assumption that make the future re-instatement to its real owner, a very difficult or impossible task in the future. Furthermore, the very fact that the "State" issues "ownership" title deeds and /or the occupier assume and claim ownership is by itself an act that constitutes theft.

Such a thing did not and does not occur in the south. No-one using a TC property assumes it's ownership, nor has been issued any document that can possibly imply ownership. He cannot construct anything permanent inside and even if he does so, it will be illegal according to the laws of the RoC and consequently null and void, nor the state has any obligation to honour any such illegal construction in a future property re-instatement to the real owner. It is a subject of immediate demolishment and technically the state can do it any time it chooses to so. Selling such properties further down is an even more difficult task (in fact impossible,) because the current users has absolutely no document in his hands.

If you are talking about the TC land that has been used by the government in order to construct public benefit projects, such as roads, schools, hospitals, refuge housing projects, etc, then this is a different issue. The government (any country's government) has a constitutional such right. In such cases the land was officially expropriated and the value at the time of expropriation has been saved in the name of the owner, bearing all nominal interest ever since it’s expropriation. However, these cases represent only a very small percentage of TC properties -less than 1% of the total TC properties, if my memory is correct!

The same happened in the north with the use of GC land for such public benefit establishments, and this is not among the land that we commonly refer to as being stolen. Even though we do not recognise the "TRNC" as a legal government, still we all understand that there was a need for new public benefit projects that would serve the TC community. In any case this type of expropriate land is very small and doesn't constitute the core of the problem!

I suggest you avoid trying to draw any similar parallelism between the treatment GC properties in the north and TC properties in the south because the two situations are unmatchable in all senses, and any such attempts equate to nothing else than to unfortunate propaganda rhetoric.

[Kifeas]

fi

Absolutely their is a dedicated service that safeguards TC property in ROC, unlike what happens in the occupied north.

Wouldnt make such a general statement, a lot of TCs land around limassol has been used for housing both for refugees and for sale....We had another example of the airport and a man who has had a factory built on his...

No TC land is used for sale in Limassol or elsewhere and only a very small portion of TC land was used for refuge housing. There are only 3 such refugee settlements in the entire Limassol area that had been built on TC land. Each one of them doesn't occupy more than 20-25 donums of land. That makes a total of 60-70 donums, and all of them are housing about 1,500 refugee families. By the way, have you seen how these houses (apartments) were built? One on top or “inside” the other!

The total TC land in the entire area of Limassol district is about 130 thousand donums. The 70 donums over the entire TC land constitute about 0.05% of this land!

EDITED for reason 1
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus1566.html

[erolz]

I think you do not know what you are talking about Erol!

What do you mean they "have been effectively 'stolen' in their entirety"?

Land cannot be stolen in a physical sense,

Well my understanding is that there is some former TC land (both from 63-4 period and 74 period) where by whatever illegal mechanisms the officaly recognised (by RoC) deeds / ownership has passed into others hands. My understanding may be wrong but that is what I currently understand.

[erolz]

A note: from what I see on this forum the GC clearly say themselves their wrongdoings no matter how small, the TC on the other hand always come back with a you've done it too responce (even if it's a bit fabricated or tiny)

I think the above comment says more about your ability to see things 'objectively' than any difference between GC and TC in this regard.

When for example I explain why the events of the period 63-74 and how GC treated TC in this period relate to and explain and define why today TC require political (and to a degree physical) protections in any proposed settlment a frequent and consistent response from some GC is 'but look at how worse the ottomans behaved towards GC and for how much longer they did this'.

[erolz]

It is late!!! 30 years late!!!! It's not good after Turkey has been cornered by european courts etc. to say that it's going to start protecting GC properties.

So you would prefer that TC continue to not try and protect former GC properties indefinately to them doing so 'later' than they should and GC did to former TC property?

only wish that TC would think the same.

Are these 'proposals' that the TRNC is (aledgedly) looking at now not aimed at achieveing exactly what you want in this regard?