insan wrote:There are so many rumours about the number of settlers. Let's assume their number is 80.000 together with their spouses and descendants. Can we assume them as 15.000 families with 3.5 children each? Ok.
According to my estimation, 13.000-14.000 settler families have been occupaying houses belong to GCs. Most probably, the agricaltural land they were given in North should be proportionate to their population, particularly in Karpasia district that there are several pure settler villages.
What about their first generation descendants who came to Cyprus when they were child or teenagers?
My estimation of their numbers is that they constitute 1000-2000 families.
It is highly probable that most of them built their own houses on GC land.
First of all, these settlers have nothing equivelant in South to exchange.
What kind of future is waiting these settlers?
What percentage of these settlers considerably invested the houses and lands they occupy?
I think those who considerably invested the GC properties wouldn't want to return them unless they are paid the compensation of what they invested. So what can they do? Most of them wouldn't be able to buy those properties. Perhaps most of them could afford to rent or lease the properties they considerably invested. Let's say 1000-2000 families who considerably invested the GC properties in last 20-30 years decided to restitute the properties to the original owners. Who will pay their compensation of the investment they have made? Original owners of the properties or Turkey?
What is your opinions about the settlers issue? How can it be solved humanely and without creating tensions?
Hmm, I see the various problems here Insan, in fact I am surprised that the majority of settlers voted Yes at the referendum.
Maybe they were hoping on getting EU citizenship, and then emigrating to someplace within the EU.
Or maybe they were relying on the very strict restitution laws of the Annan Plan and the workings of the Property Board - according to which, many GC properties in the north would be offered for sale in the free market for very low prices, and GCs would be banned from purchasing.
So in effect, settlers would have been able to buy very cheap GC properties, and then have their own legal "freehold". This, you might understand, is unacceptable to GCs ...
Basically, the situation is deadlocked here, because any solution that DOES NOT involve GC property falling in settler hands would mean that the settlers will have no place to go, whereas any situation that DOES involve GC property falling in settler hands is totally unacceptable to GCs ...
The only humane (or at least relatively humane) solution that I can think of is:
All settlers who remain are built new homes, at the expense of Turkey. The way this would work in practice, is that in the first three-five years each settler (who is on the 45.000 list) will have to decide if he will stay in Cyprus or emigrate abroad (Turkey, EU, or US). If he chooses to emigrate, perhaps there can be a monetary compensation for him as well. If instead he chooses to stay then a new home should be built for him, on land that is NOT of original Greek Cypriot ownership. (e.g. state owned land, evkaf land if the evkaf is willing to make a donation, TC land that the constituent state will buy).
(It is important to note at this point that Settlers MUST NOT end up in GC properties, whatever the mechanism that might get them there is. The moment we have one settler staying in a GC home, we can be assured of a resounding GC No in a second referendum. For this reason, Turkcyp's suggestion that settlers should be able to buy the property he is staying in is not acceptable, unless of course such a transaction is voluntarily agreed by the original owner.)
The cost for compensating settlers and housing settlers should, in my opinion, be borne exclusively by Turkey. At this point also, I disagree with Turkcyp who says it is not a state's business "to pay for the choices of immigrants". Turkey was following a deliberate policy of attracting its citizens to go and live in Cyprus, in order to "fill up the empty houses" and "strengthen the Turkish element in Cyprus". It is therefore wrong to just call these people "immigrants", and treat them as such. Calling them "immigrants" does not make their life any easier, in fact it adds a burden of responsibility on their backs that they cannot bear, and totally absolves Turkey of any and all responsibilities.