New Titles Distributed In ROC

AndyLynnW


Joined: 05/12/2008
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
12/08/2009 17:54

Phileleftheros reported that 585 title deeds were given to Greek Cypriots who live in "immigrants houses" or who built houses on Turkish land which was claimed to belong to the Greek Cypriot administration. According to the article, 97 of the titles were issued in South Nicosia,85 in Limassol, 108 in Larnaca and 295 in Famagusta.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
12/08/2009 19:45

Why am I not surprised!! Perhaps mmmmmm (6m's) et al will get on the case and protest that this was done through 'proper legal process' and with the whole hearted support of the ECHR! More likely, he and those who often berate the CT may well have to eat some humble pie...or more likely just pretend that it didn't happen!

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 01:40

Dear Moover321



Let me make it VERY clear..



If the land was TC owned in 74 - t is STILL owned by the TC - and if the state housed "refugees" on this land then the TC cn expect compo...



What you all too easily forget is that post July / August 74 there were FAR more GCs looking for accommodation, and in the north far more accommodation than TCs..



I DO NOT support the granting of normalised title deeds on land that is owned by TCs.





I DO understand the needs of GCs for some sort of finalisation / closure.. but that was what Annan was about..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 06:21

mm



"What you all too easily forget is that post July / August 74 there were FAR more GCs looking for accommodation, and in the north far more accommodation than TCs.. "



It is true post 74 that in absolute numbers there were more displaced GC than TC, however it is also true that in terms relative to communites total sizes the number of displaced people in the GC community was smaller than the number of TC in the TC community. Displaced GC post 74 were a minority of the total GC population - more GC were not displaced than were - for TC community the reverse was true - most TC were displaced and many of those for the second or third time since 63.



This differnce I believe is the primary reason why the South could and did treat ownership differently post 74 than the North. They had options the North simply did not. This is not a justification for the siezure of peoples land, you can not just take land with no recourse to the prior owner



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 06:22

However this IS now being addressed re the North with the IPC I believe.

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 07:07

6m's no doubt you believe in justice and fairness - but as per previous postings and here you seem to believe that the property dispute on this island started in 1974! You are simply WRONG!



Anyone who has an eye for history and an openess for the facts knows this!



You and others who draw the line in 1974 need to realise that your so called 'legalities' are based on a false premise! If you apply GC law or a skewed EU / ECHR approach to the political problem you will get an absurd result! As long as no account is taken of the realities on the ground you and others like you who have generally espoused the GC cause in terms of what you term as 'stolen' land by choosing 1974 as your start point will always, in my opinion have missed the point of why this island is divided and why a simplistic approach that you take will never result in a solution! The law as any lawyer worth his / her salt knows can be and often is an arse!



The solution is POLITICAL not legal!



Cont'd...

Moover321


Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 649

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 07:18

Cont'd...



Suffering is not measured by how many properties GC or TC lost in 1974! It should and probably in the end will take account of the history of the island and the realities on the ground!



I have now lived on both sides of the island and in my personal experience the vitriol I have from GC against the TC is indicative to me of the deep animosity the GC have had towards the TC - NOT just post 1974! In the TRNC I have never heard anyone take such an equally vitriolic stance. Granted this is only my experience, however, it was also reflected in the vote in 2004!



Whatever the final solution - I would bet that the GC will NEVER be satisfied in totality!



May be like their bretheren they still lament the loss of Constantinople as it wass then and Istanbul as it is now!



I wonder if the Greeks will take that one to the ECHR? Oh! I forgot - the issue of land only ever started in 1974! LOL:D

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 13:29

Hi ErolZ

re 4/5



Too long time no hear... WELCOME!



I am trying to digest your conjecture that the "north" had less options..Are you saying that the "south" had more vacant homes at it's disposal?



Moover321 re 6/7



>>but as per previous postings and here you seem to believe that the property dispute on this island started in 1974! You are simply WRONG! <<



For the second time today I have to question your ability to accurately recall my posts.. I STRONGLY believe the ECHR should investigate claims back to 63 - I'm QUITE aware of ethnic cleansing beginning ( big time) in Dec 63 - AND - as ErolZ said many folk ( GCs / TCs ) ended up having to move more than once..



>>The solution is POLITICAL not legal! <<



OK, may be NOW.. but the impetus for something akin to a political soln came from LEGAL actions.. Could you tell us what movement their was from TR until the ECHR cases piled up, please ?



Would we have the IPC the GCs have ( unwisely) be advised to ignore?



(

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 13:36

from 8 - cont



To Moover321



AGAIN , you exhibit a VERY oversimplistic evaluation of the Annian vote... AGAIN you choose to ignore that I was trying to persuade GCs to vote YES.. I did not encounter vitriole against TCs.. not once that I can remember - the constant argument was that TR / Denktash ( a particular TC ) couldn't be trusted - they simply couldn't believe that Mr D had "fallen" ... that TR had progressive leaders ..



>>Whatever the final solution - I would bet that the GC will NEVER be satisfied in totality! <<



Well I agree with that - if you lived in Varosha/ Maras / Kyrenia / Girne - particularly.. ! But the Annan deal was probably the best compromise they would get... Sadly, that just didn't weigh up against their leader saying it went against EU norms of Human Rights... ( it did - but it was a necessary compromise to reassure TCs )

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 13:47

From a GC perspective:



I have friend who is British ( ex UK Army) who met and married a GC.



She was from a village that was £taken" by the Turks in 74.. the first to run away being the EOKA B "hereoes"...



Her family lived in tents and ultimately rehoused in a house built for "refugees" on TC land in Episkopi. when her parent passed on it became her house - but she never got deeds. She has visited her village and the house where she lived has been demolished and new properties built.. Some TC friends kept the belongings they left behind in storage until April 2003 !

She voted YES to Annan.

She has seen a friend of hers ( also displaced in 74 ) build up a metal working workshop biz in the old port area of Lima(s)sol and he must move out to make way for the TC owner who wishes to return.

The question of deeds is a real thorny issue..

1/ the GCs can't "move on" - they can only sell to another "Refugee" status person

2/any improvements they make can't be funded by borr

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 13:50

cont from 10 - by borrowing.



Some GCs have pushed for full title - the right to sell for private gain... but this means the "rump" RoC would be "guilty" of double stds.



IMHO to grant full ownership title on such places is FOLLY - unless the "rump" RoC wishes to accept the status quo as permanent..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 13:58

MM



"Are you saying that the "south" had more vacant homes at it's disposal? "



No I am saying that you can survive when 20% of your population has their property value assets tied up indeterminately for an unkown period of time. You can not if 80% of the population is in this situation. The pressure on the north to give their people something for their 'lost' property following 74 was different and much greater than in the south, because the % of the population in that situation was much greater. All they could give them was property taken from GC - not right but no other realistic option was available and unlike in the south if no alternative assets was given, then the north could not hope to survive with 70-80% of its people with unsable property assets. The south could and does survive with 20%ish of its people in this situation but it could not if it was 80% and if it was they probably would have given freehold deeds to gc of pre 74 tc property in way similar to north (imo)

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 14:03

Hi ErolZ



re 12



how do you arrive at your %age's, please.. I've always reckoned that 25-35% of GCs were displaced.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
13/08/2009 22:21

The figures were not meant to be accurate but indicative. To be honest the 80/20 I used to indiucated the difference probably comes the % ownership of the north pre 74 and not displaced people. If you take this figure then post 74 the north had to build a viable state/entity when only 20% of the area under its control was undisputed. The south had to do the same with 80% of the area under its control undisputed. This difference drove the different ways disputed property was handled in the North and South.Displaced people is probably nearer 30% of gc population and 55% of the TC. However my point remains the same. These different numbers and the fact that the south recieved vastly more foreign aid post 74 for reconstruction than the north were key factors in the different ways displaced property was handled.



BTW the 80/20 is priavte owned land not total land but the point remains the same.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
14/08/2009 11:20

The ROC argument of necessity has worn pretty thin by now given they have always maintained the ownership of TC properties still resides with the original owner except when they have been compulsorily acquired 9which is another argument / story).



If you acept the above range of fugures quoted



Lets say 40,000 T/C refugees left the ROC for the north if you allow for an average household size of say 3 persons (which is pretty conservative given larger household sizes in the past) this would equate to approx 13,300 houses (less those destroyed before and during 1974.



If there were 180,000 GC refugees at the same density they would have required a maximum of 60,000 homes less 13,300.



Were all of these built on TC land ?



Even so over 25 year the ROC could have easily rehoused them all on government owned or properly purchased land giving them the title (this averages to only 2,400 per year or one medium/ large development p.a.).



They didn't do this.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
14/08/2009 11:26

Cont



The reason as I see it is a deliberate policy to prevent the GC refugees from obtaining a permanent secure ownership and motivate them to continue an active campaign to return to the North. Or if you take a more cynical view to maintain an anti settlement mentality that ruled against Annan etc.



Of course official policy is to continually create new refugees through the ability to pass on refugee status on the paternal side of the family to second third etc. GC's would were not even born in the North. This also includes Cypriot Children of half foreign or mixed marriages as well eg half Russian/ GC children etc. Normally refugee population decluine over time but in the ROC they only grow.



Aussie