Property dispute suggestions

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:02

Some interesting and well thought out suggestions.



http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/turkey-cyprus/cyprus/210-cyprus-bridging-the-property-divide.aspx

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:07

intereting quote ..........



Turkish Cypriots should recognise that while they want to retain a majority in their constituent state, two thirds to three quarters of property in their area was owned by Greek Cypriots in 1974, when the present division of the island took place. They must understand that the right to restitution holds great importance in Greek Cypriot discourse. Turkish and Turkish Cypriot leaders must remind their populations that the division of the island has no legal basis.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:15

how would this affect ex-pats on either side ..would they also have to pay or give up their homes ...???

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:40

a) both sides should state that all pre-1974 home owners have the right in principle to reclaim their primary residence;



b) the Greek Cypriot side should prepare public opinion to accept that rights to restitution in a Turkish Cypriot constituent state may be restricted by bizonality and in mutually agreed cases such as public usage;



c) the Turkish Cypriot side should offer as much reinstatement of property ownership as possible within the context of bizonality, while protecting the rights of the current users, especially if they themselves are displaced and are using the property as a primary residence; and



d) alternative accommodation should be provided for those who have to vacate current housing and have no other home.



Doesn't bode well for expat owners of a holiday or second home in NC.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:45

Hector , my point exactly , nieither g/c or t/c govern will care about ex-pats ,if their names go down in history as "solving" the problem ......casualities of "non" war......



The sadest thing is how little views this thread has got ,, yet IF it happens people will scream ....

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:52

Its just an up to date version of the Annan Plan.



I do agree Hector, it does not bode well for second home owners.



It will carry some weight as The International Crisis Group is now generally recognised as the world’s leading independent, non-partisan, source of analysis and advice to governments, and intergovernmental bodies like the United Nations, European Union and World Bank.

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:54

Hector / apc



I think that people are finally beginning to realise that the wants or needs of any foreign "owners" of property in Cyprus will be way way down the list of priorities if and when a "Cyprus Solution" is found.



A solution will be sought that satisfies Cypriots....and if there are any scraps left on the table then these might be shared amongst any ex-pats and foreign owners.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 21:56

In total agreement with message 5. The TRNC Government, Turkey and the ROC, will not consider the needs of the expats. They will be sold down the river.

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:06

So a person who has bought an apartment on exchange land and has his ptp,and deeds,will lose it,

Grey.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:10

grey , I would not bet against it , orams ???......techinically/legally on both sides if the land was not "theirs" pre 74 it is not theirs to sell .....the un or whoever brokers the deal will stick to international law , not a few thousand people moaning ...........

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:20

implementing it may not be so easy thou ?

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:26

Even if the land is proven to be clean,as in not Greek Cypriot,

Grey.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:30

I believe unless it was owned by a t/c or g/c pre 74 ( not common/church) land , it would be a very dodgy area , rowlo msg11,I am sure people said that about being evicted and having homes sold in N/cyprus by auction ..when a mortage had been placed on it ....

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:31

Greylag, do you mean pre 74 Turkish title and foreign title as being clean title?

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:33

Grey....The TRNC govt are more than willing to give PTP to foreigners on land which some consider "disputed" or "stolen".



However they are reluctant to grant PTP to foreigners on "clean" land ie Pre-74 Turkish Title which DOES actually belong to them !

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:35

msg 15 , surely that should ring alarm bells ...

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:37

Alarm bells can only be heard by those that want to listen !

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:39

I was told today by a customer who bought 18 years ago trnc title, all ok but his friends bought turkish title 2 years ago and it seems all ok with that.who do you beleive oh by the way the were brits x

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:42

Hi all,

The land was acquired from a Turkish Cypriot and has new build completed and now lived in apartments on it.Are you saying that these would be taken away from all the people on there,all of which have deeds.Then what would happen,would all of the apartments be bulldozed.Who would carry out the bulldozing.Personally i cant see it,but would really like to hear your views,

Grey.

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:48

Grey



People make too much of the "bulldozer" scenario and then rationalise it in their own minds that it will never happen.



Bulldozers never turned up at the Orams front door....they didn't have to.....but the result was the same.



Sorry to sound so negative, but I have absolutely no faith in the TRNC government and its deplorable treatment of foreign property buyers.

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:51

Cronos,

The last time i looked the orams ex Villa was still standing.Take your point re-government,so deeds mean Jack s*** then,

Grey.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:57

I think that the original owners either t/c or g/c would have the final say , I imagine that if they found out that a nice new house had been built on their land , they may want some form of rent or even repossesion , (nice gift).....and if any ex-pat on either side thinks different , good luck to you ........

Denny


Joined: 09/12/2010
Posts: 261

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 22:57

Msg 19,



Surely they wouldn't bulldoze apartments unless they were dangerous or illegal building standards. Surely apartmenst should be better used for displaced TCs or GCs?

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 23:00

Msg 21 , deeds to what ..????/ it was not (i do not know who sold ) theirs to sell .......proved in all the courts ...inc the uk... how can you sell something you do not own......

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 23:52

I think the Orams case was a bit different, there was a house on the land when they bought it. This was either bulldozed or added to to form the Orams Villa. If there never was a building on the land that new properties have been built on how can a Greek Cypriot say it belongs to them? The land might do but a lot of the land was good for nothing except grazing goats and had very little value prior to 1974. I think some compensation maybe asked, for your plot of land but I think a better deal would be to lease it from the Greek Cypriot who owns it. Having said all of this what is going to happen to the exchanged land in the south?



The butlers wife

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
09/12/2010 23:57

Butlers wife , how can you say "the land was good for nothing except grazing goats and had very little value " when there is now a villa on it ...?????obviously it had value ..or people would not be building on it ...



as to the question in the South the same rules should apply but would be easier in the south ,,in 1972 the t/c s owned about 18% of the land ...so not so much of a problem...

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 00:21

The Oram's case is typical of so many others. Actually there were outbuildings on the land but not a house. If you remember the Oram's were the only people on Mr A's land that were taken to court. The TC's that resided on Mr. A's land were left alone, as he viewed them as victims in much the same way as himself.



I really don't thing that you can use the worthless scrub land argument because the land (which they have never sold so continue to legally own) is now prime building land and therefore has to be valued as such at today's prices. Logically what you are saying is that if one buys scrub land 40 years ago then you have no right to sell it as building land nearly 40 years later and you should only compensate for what its original worth was. This is not a convincing argument. If I was GC or TC would I accept the £3000 it was valued at in 1974 or would I fight to sell at today's price of £60000?

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 00:29

bradus , I agree it is like saying to an expat who bought their house in 1965 in the uk.... I will pay the same price today . Rubbish ..



My father bought a property in London in 1973 for 6,000 now I dread to think how much it is worth ..



The thing is ,it is the "normal " people who lost not the respective governments or leaders ..they all got rich ..

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 00:29

Also some land was lucrative farming land and agricultural land, worth more at the time, than the property situated on that land.

Too often "scrub land" is used as an excuse.................I have an area in my garden which could easily be described as such, but that does not mean that people, that do not own it, are justified in building property on it, solely to make a profit.



Ownership is what counts, be it in the North or the South.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 00:37

Baileys Irish cream ???? 21 Sazna 440 10/12/2010 00:33



Property dispute suggestions 29 Bradus 259 10/12/2010 00:29



This is what is sad the booze post has 440 views ,the possibility of losing a home has 259......



no wonder people get stafted .............

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 00:57

Perhaps they are drinking to black out the inevitable apc2010?

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 01:19

apc2010,



I suggest you read the post from Rauf Denktas before proclaiming about the amount of land the Turkish Cypriots owned prior to 1974. As I said in my original post much of the land was not valuable arable land but scrub land with little value then. So from 2000 onwards people woke up to the fact it could be built on and foreign owners bought in good faith. These owners have boosted the economy of the TRNC by millions of lira, giving many a very good living. Do you really think that Greek Cypriots would wish to go back to the north and live and do you really think that Turkish Cypriots would want to return to the south and live? I don't think it will ever happen. So an exchange of land would be the best thing for everyone. The land in the south is more valuable so the Greek Cypriots would still make a tidy profit without hounding the foreign buyers for more.



The butlers wife

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 01:31

Sorry , but is that your argument , before 1997 Bluewater shopping centre (the biggest in europe) was a waste ground , same principle , please provide your facts and figures on land ownership please ..

here are mine .......



3) According to data that cannot be disputed, prepared both under British rule and since Independence, the percentages of land ownership in Cyprus are as follows:



Greeks Turks Others State Land

60.9% 12.3% 0.5% 26.3%

"State Land" includes: communal properties (such as grazing areas), roads rivers, lakes, forests and other state owned lands.



The percentages of privately owned land are as follows:



Greeks Turks Others

82.7% 16.7% 0.6%

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 01:35

let's not be carried away by rhetoric!



it is a leap of the imagination that "recognised international ownership"

as the gc's say, will intrude on those in current legal possession

...or that after all this time it amounts to very much in practice



yes it is true that a deal of some sort would have repercussions

but that is at least as far off as ever it was: partition is a reality on the ground

even if an agreement required owners to pay something,

their properties would rise in value by more than that amount I'm sure



finally, cronos is correct that the trnc would prefer that ex-pats carry the can

but I am not sure they could arrange that so easily for the following reasons:



it would deliver the local property, trade and tourism industry a crushing blow

possession. ownership, and involvement are not so clear-cut viz kocans etc etc

some tc's are also ex-pats nowadays ie "I come from london" and so-on



so let our motto be "forward north cyprus, you'll outlast the

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 01:36

All foreign buyers in Cyprus should do so with their eyes open on both sides ...esp in N/cyprus it is well known it is only accepted as a country by Turkey .....as for buying exchange land .....put yourself in their shoes for once ...thier children inheritence , lived in not by a fellow cypriot either t/c or g/c ...but by somebody looking for a cheap home in the sun ..................this applies both sides ..............



think about the house you grew up in ...........

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 01:47

continuation of my message 34:



"so let our motto be "forward north cyprus, you'll outlast the euro" (probably)





and to apc message 35:



you may be right, you may be wrong in your views but you have strong international verbal support



however as in all disputes of this type it is just a tad disingenuous to hock a one-size-fits-all viewpoint



perhaps there are victims on the island ...just as there are in many many parts of the world,



but I genuinely do not believe fueling their fantasies of a return will help them in the very long run



andre

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 01:56

I never once mentioned return , what I implied is that on both sides ,would you not want "something" back ..especially if talks fail ....who will pay ..???

What annoys me is the I am alright jack attitude or the deluded ...



andre , you are right I do not believe that either t/c or g/c will up their families and move to a place they hardly remember , but in this day and age money talks , if I had land that somebody else lived on ...I would want a piece of the pie.........human nature .....would you not ...if it was legally yours on paper ..?????

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 08:10

Hi All,

So the title deeds that i have in my posession are not worth the paper they are printed on,

Grey.

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 09:21

The numbers of GCs who are applying to the IPC for compensation and/restitution are increasing. I have also helped many by giving them direction and the right information to proceed in this direction. Most are the children and grand children who have inherited lands and property. I think the trend is slowly going this way. All with whom I have spoken have told me that they try to keep this move confidential as possible from their communities because they are still pressurised to feel bad about it by the extreme elements even in their own extended families.

http://no-deeds-no-money.moonfruit.com/#/i-p-c/4544142510



The IPC still have hundreds of Application to deal with,

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 09:47

Mess 39,Walkerscott,

Would you be able to answer my question on mess 38,

Grey.

Tenakoutou



Joined: 27/07/2009
Posts: 4110

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 09:48

greylag/Msg 38:



It's like you bought a bargain priced car without its original logbook.....please draw your own conclusions.

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 09:56

Grey

Your Title Deeds are yours indeed. The IPC take the view that lands which have been developed on cannot be returned to the original owners and they receive compensation for such (and good compensation). The same for more or less for buildings which have been significantly altered, improved or developed. Many of the restitution cases, of which there are relatively few, are subject to a "solution" being agreed.

Those who have inherited lands and buildings generally tend to go for compensation.

John

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 11:52

Thank you Walkerscott, for putting a lot of peoples minds at rest.









The butlers wife

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 12:38

I believe the ipc closes at the end of the year for claims, what will happen after that .....

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 12:48

I have been informed that it will continue because the take up is increasing.

It would be a good thing for it to remain.

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 12:58

I think the answer to greylags question



'So the title deeds that i have in my posession are not worth the paper they are printed on,'



is likely to be 'Yes' presuming he refers to exchange land.

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 16:24

Hector,

Yes i do refer to exchange land,

Grey.

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 16:35

Mess 42,

Thanks.



Mess 46,

Confused again.

Grey.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 17:55

grey , I think what they are saying is beware if it is exchange land , basically it was not the vendors to sell , so still a bit of a gamble .........

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 18:37

No need to panic Grey its pure speculation again, you will find that Bradus,Cronos and Hector all bought on Pre-74 title land and were subsequently refused PTP.

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 18:46

apc2010,



I can't make up my mind whether you are just a stirer or are on a more destructive mission to scare ex pats. It is obvious from your posts that you are a greek cypriot sympathiser. Walkerscot has explained that the majority of land that has been built on will be compensated for. 1974 is a long time ago and in reality the majority of owners will have passed on. Their heirs will almost definitely accept compensation to fund their new lives elsewhere in the world. Why do you insist in saying that this isn't true?



The butlers wife

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 19:06

butler wife all my posts refer to both sides not just n/cyprus ...I agree most will want compensation ...but some as in the orams case , will want more even if it is to score poliltical points ...the rich g/c hotelier/developer who is now going to court does not need the money ..he will not settle for compensation I believe ......If buyers want to stick their head in the sand ok ....I a have never hidden my views that, on either side ,that buying exchange land is wrong ...imagine if it was your home/land lost I am sure you would say ..hey that 30 odd years ago ..who cares ..

alphabeau


Joined: 22/11/2010
Posts: 13

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 19:18

Walkerscott,



Thanks for your postings.



Re compensation concerning exchange land - how is this calculated?



Is it a pecentage of the present day (at the time of the deal) value of the land and new build on it, or just on the land (present day value) if it was a green field site when originally purchased off plan?



Can compensation simply be a figure agreed by both parties?



We were told at the time of our purchase that if the land has been exchanged in the past, and no challenge has been made re that land for 10 years, then the new owner is the true owner and they can sell it on if they want.



Is this nonsense?

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 19:29

"We were told at the time of our purchase that if the land has been exchanged in the past, and no challenge has been made re that land for 10 years, then the new owner is the true owner and they can sell it on if they want.







Is this nonsense? "



by chance did an estate agent or developer tell you his ..............



If you want real hard facts do not listen to people on a forum (myself inc) contact the British foreign office , they will tell you ..............unless settled by the IPC , anything could still happen ..solution or no solution to the Cyprob..

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 19:35

and correct me if I am wrong but if they are not happy with the ipc they can still apply to the echr , ..???

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 22:53

You are quite correct apc, if they were not happy with what had been offered by the IPC they could take it to the ECHR but they would then have to prove that the IPC did not act within their framework "agreed by the ECHR" and if they are unable to do this who foots the legal bill ??

alphabeau


Joined: 22/11/2010
Posts: 13

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 22:59

Hi APC,



Interestingly an estate agent (quel surprise) but also the lawyer who did the conveyancing.



It was approx 6 years ago mind you when a lot of the above discussion would have been off radar.



We do have the deeds for what they are worth.

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 23:06

If you have your deeds then your in a better position than most and no one can say for sure what would happen were there to be a agreement.



Keep smiling )

alphabeau


Joined: 22/11/2010
Posts: 13

Message Posted:
10/12/2010 23:15

I still find it amusing that when it suits, the TRNC is deemed to be under ECHR rules, whilst not in 'recognised' Europe.



The irony of course is that had both sides agreed the Annan unification option, accession criteria, and agreed to join the EU together, the claims for both sides would have been strengthened.



Maybe the political propaganda is worth more than the settlement, as has been alluded to above.



Wheels within wheels eh?

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 02:53

apc message 54:



did the fco really talk about a "solution" to the cyprob?

then perhaps it should read a solution to the "cyprob" instead



at any rate there can only ever be a solution for one community

for the cypriot turks security and self government,

for the ethnic greek population a sort of takeover of the north



if you prefer to stick with a solution notwithstanding lack of any

agreement between the sides on the exact nature of the cyprob,

then with the greatest of respect I'd suggest you think in terms

of a compromise, a give and take if you like, with guarantees

or even guarantors as some would of course prefer



since this seems to be just a little shy in revealing itself,

an alternative possible solution (your word, I apologise)

is a formal rather than a de facto partition of the island



this could be a long way off so we may happily mull over

an infinite range of hypothetical endgames meantimes



andre

pollymarples


Joined: 08/08/2010
Posts: 1778

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 07:18

In other words, carry on guessing because God knows what will happen and he isn't telling!!!

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 10:42

re message 53

Compensation, I believe, is calculated on the value of the property, and in most cases it'll be the land because in 1974 Kyrenia was just a large village type community and the outstations were very sparse indeed, - so:

The market value on 20th July 1974

Loss of income and increase in value since 1974

Whether the applicant is in possession of any Turkish Cypriot property in the

South and whether the applicant is receiving any income from such property

Non-pecuniary damages based on the manner of use of the property and the loss

of individual, family and moral ties to the property, psychological stress, upset etc



http://www.todayszaman.com/news-225256-kktc-confident-of-feasibility-and-strength-of-its-property-proposal.html



http://www.no-deeds-no-money.moonfruit.com

cyprusman3



Joined: 09/06/2009
Posts: 297

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 11:12

this is a very unfair deal !! whats good for the goose is good for the gander, ie if you own esteyer land you have the same rights to claim for your displacement for left lands in the south ans they do for their land in the north, their argument is they did not stop you going over and claiming your land but this doest take into account that turks don't have t leave their families to live in a foreign environment so there will be a lot of disputes to follow ,the Greeks want it all their own way but it is just not going to happen !!

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 11:23

A quote from APC:



"According to data that cannot be disputed, prepared both under British rule and since Independence, the percentages of land ownership in Cyprus are as follows:



Greeks Turks Others State Land



60.9% 12.3% 0.5% 26.3%



"State Land" includes: communal properties (such as grazing areas), roads rivers, lakes, forests and other state owned lands.



The percentages of privately owned land are as follows:



Greeks Turks Others



82.7% 16.7% 0.6%"



Data which cannot be disputed? APC must be 'avin a giraffe! Of course it can be disputed!



1946 (British) census data still exists, and does not support your 'indisputable' assertions.



On another thread today, Rauf Denktash is quoted saying 'According to the 1946 census, arable land owned by Turkish Cypriots, amounted to 38.5 percents' (sic).



How can GC's and their supporters reconcile their figure of 12.5% with this data, bearing in mind that in 1946 housing and urban sprawl was a far smaller proportion of la

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 11:31

land.

(bloody character counter!)



When the GC side counted up the area of 'their' land claimed to have been lost to the nasty Turkish Army, it exceeded the entire land area of Cyprus - despite the fact that the entire North is only around one third of the island.



Perhaps APC's 'post independence' data is not as reliable as it should be.



Perhaps a lot of GC assertions as to what they owned were made AFTER they had forced the TC minority into ghettoes, (forming only 3% of land area) and lined up to ditch Cyprus' Independence in favour of Union with Greece.

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 11:35

This is what I was trying to tell APC in my message 32. It is a well known fact, that it was the Turkish Cypriots who were the growers and farmers and the Greek Cypriots were the shop keepers and business men.

My husband has a work colleague who has owned property in the south for 30 years and they travel over the border to the Wednesday market to buy fruit & Veg. Why because they are unable to get the quality in the south. If the Turkish Cypriots were the growers and farmers, then they must have owned more land than 12-18% as APC states.





The butlers wife

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 12:49

If everyone has a better census of land ownership please post it with a link not what rauf "said" ..

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 13:30

Hi all,

Very interesting and thought provoking views from all.Nice to have a proper debate on here

without anyone throwing their dummies out of their repective prams.We bought a new build

apartment,three years ago now on Esdeger land,and were made fully aware of the possible

compensation claims,but where happy to take a chance.The property issue is so complex,but

then i knew that when i stuck my size tens in.We have our deeds,and are very happy with our

lot.As to which way it will go,i dont suppose anyone could put their hand on their heart and say.



Thanks for all the posts,but to be honest i am really none the wiser.Have a great week-end,

Grey.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 13:34

well said grey you knew the risks you take your chance ......nice for someone to be honest .....

cronos


Joined: 26/10/2008
Posts: 2093

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 14:49

Butlers wife....msg 66...."If the Turkish Cypriots were the growers and farmers, then they must have owned more land than 12-18% as APC states. "



Not necessarily....growers and farmers don't necessarily "own" the land, they can just pay rent and farm it.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 14:59

grey,



I think you have summed up the situation well. It is about knowing the facts and making an informed choice. There may well be a solution that makes having bought in the TRNC an excellent investment, on the other hand you could be expected to pay compensation or lease the property you have paid for in full.



As long as people recognise this and are prepared for any consequences then there should be no big surprises.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 16:11

basil please back this statement up ................of yours ...........



On another thread today, Rauf Denktash is quoted saying 'According to the 1946 census, arable land owned by Turkish Cypriots, amounted to 38.5 percents' (sic).

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 16:28

Hi cronos Msg 70,



Yes I agree with what you are saying and lots of them probably did rent the land but I still believe that the TC ownership was a lot higher than 12-18% and nearer to the figure that Rauf Denktas has quoted. Lots of land deeds have been altered by the Greek Cypriots since 1974. I was given to understand that exchange land is the equivelent of what Turkish Cypriots left behind in the south and that they handed in their deeds to the Turkish Cypriot government before receiving the land in the north. If this is the case, then if you believe the Greek Cypriots then this land should still be there. Why not sell this land as it is of a higher value and pay the compensation if any is due. There will be many owners who are retired, who simply will not be able to afford

to raise the money for compensation. Do they just abandon their homes and move back to the UK?



The butlers wife

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 19:03

butlers wife you said ........."Do they just abandon their homes and move back to the UK? " ..........this is exactly what t/cs did between 63-74 and g/cs did in 74 ...........again I ask how would you feel ..?????



(not to the uk but they moved from their homes)

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 19:24

Any foreign buyer on this island buying property should do with their eyes wide open and do their own research , ..........as mentioned on another thread at the end of the day ,foreign buyers in Cyprus will not effect what governments either side want to do ...........

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 19:48

Do we all still believe there was a legal exchange between TC property owners and GC owners?



Didn't happen and cannot be used to justify property purchase. If it was the case then the Oram's would not be in the mess they are in now!

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 19:53

Hi All,

Anyone know what plan B is.Keep hearing it being banded about in political circles,

Grey.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 20:22

to some extent north cyprus property prices are already cheaper than they may be otherwise

...this to take into account what some see as various "uncertainties"



but I'd hope every foreign buyer keeps their eyes open,

since thousands have already lost their savings in spain, bulgaria and very many other places



what clobbered them is crooked or bankrupt developers,

indifferent enforcement and a falling market, as well as retroactive planning laws



it remains to be seen whether the orams' case has much bearing on the security of trnc deeds:

paradoxically anything like this which depresses prices further may encourage intrepid investors



finally, I cannot find any real evidence that all the talk orbiting various "compensation" scenarios

is related to anything happening at the moment... perhaps some wise head could explain?

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 21:35

From apc message 75:

'basil please back this statement up ................of yours ...........

On another thread today, Rauf Denktash is quoted saying 'According to the 1946 census, arable land owned by Turkish Cypriots, amounted to 38.5 percents' (sic). '



read and weep:

http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/51399.asp



I note that your unsubstantiated statistics (12.5% of Cyprus was TC) are claimed (by you) to be indisputable, but records showing otherwise (over 30% of land was TC) require evidence.



Now it's your turn. Let's see links, showing the provenance of your 12.5%, apc.



Let's see whether they are conjured from thin air by the GC side, seeking to airbrush a couple of violent decades prior to 1974 from Cyprus' history. Seeking to justify events which resulted in the Turkish Army rolling them back to a line drawn by the British, years before 'independence' and based on a census showing exactly how much territory belonged to the TC minority, before EOKA terrorism.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 21:39

seriously are you quoting forum figures ...........now I know mr rauf is not biased .....but come on do not embrass yourself .....

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:03

basil



"based on a census showing exactly how much territory belonged to the TC minority, before EOKA terrorism"



could we have the source please?

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:04

apc2010 msg74,



You have asked me 3 times now how I would feel if it happened to me and my answer is no I wouldn't like it but this happened during a war and this makes things different. People have lost homes and property through wars throughout time and though it is difficult you have to move on. I am sure that land owned by Turkish Cypriots has been used to build properties for foreigners to buy, though I know this has been hotly denied by the Greek Cypriots. If you listen to all they have to say, they are whiter than white and none of the mess is their fault.



The butlers wife

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:07

of course it has half of Larnaca airport is t/c . I believe he recieves some form of rent ....I have stated in every post both sides if people buy land not belonging to the owner ,they should be prepared to lose it ...either polis or kyrenia .........

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:35

apc re message 80;



Quoting forum figures? I posted a link allowing you to read an article written by Mr Denktash for a local rag. If you don't believe the poster, go buy a copy.

If you don't believe Mr Denktash, go cry in a corner, because the census data exists, and you can't airbrush it to suit your rather obvious cause.



Bradus,

The source is census data. When Cyprus was a British colony, several census were taken and the records are safely stored as microfiche, which isn't terribly web friendly - so no, you can't have a link. You can however make enquiries and gather bits of information for yourself. It's time consuming and asking the right questions can be taxing, but it's there.



Apc - I further note that you have apparently overlooked my request for supporting data for your ludicrous assertion that only 12.5% of Cyprus was ever TC owned. It would be interesting to hear your notions on why the green line was drawn on the map, during the British government of Cyprus.

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:41

These documents may be of interest, Bradus



http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ACyprus.+Census+Office.&qt=hot_author

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:42

basil , lay off the booze (hic) .....when did I ever mention the green line ... I fully respect that Raufs opinions and facts are impartial ....

Denny


Joined: 09/12/2010
Posts: 261

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:56

So if you have Turkish title land but PTP is being blocked does that mean you can sell it over the heads of the TRNC govt if you like, seeing as its internationally recognised? I'm thinking about people who have paid for it and have a legal contract to that effect but don't have their deeds yet. Couldn't they get their deeds from the Cyprus govt (south)?

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 22:58

I think you would have to go to the land registery in the roc ..??? then .............

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 23:43

apc message 86



I didn't imply that you had mentioned the green line - the fact that a British officer who drew it thought a third of the land area of Cyprus should be allocated to Turkish Cypriots hardly suits your half baked theory about 12.5%, does it?



Are you struggling with my request to provide viable supporting evidence for that 'indisputable' figure of yours?



Denny, the 'RoC' won't be interested in helping you as they have nothing to gain from it; and their record may show everything for a hundred miles around your house as GC owned anyway ....

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 23:56

http://agrino.org/humrights/proposals/77prpsal.html



probally a little bias but trying to get figures on Cyprus is not easy ...more to come..

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
12/12/2010 00:07

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
12/12/2010 00:28

apc,

Your second link goes on about population and schoolteachers - nothing about land ownership?



The first as you say is quite biased - written for GCs less than three years after their plans for unity with Greece brought about a response which they failed to predict. The first set of figures in para 3 are the one you posted as 'indisputable'.

Presumably the 'state land' is allocated between the communities according to the same skewed viewpoint to arrive at the 20% offered in this skewed proposal - indicating 'wriggle room' for the negotiation process?

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
12/12/2010 00:31

still waiting for the 46% figures please ......

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
12/12/2010 00:45

After you, sweetie -

and you invented 46% as well ... Rauf and my quote mention 38.5%

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
12/12/2010 01:28

More suggestions for light reading, Bradus (message 81)



http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Annual+reports.-a0159507416



enjoy!

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
12/12/2010 01:45

The documents are paper. You go to the National Archive in Girne, and it's probably file 5 which is most relevant, although some of the other reports are quite revealing ...



The 1946 census data is held as important chiefly because of the change of law at that time.

Unrestricted legal ownership of private land dates from 1946, when the British administration enacted a new land law which superseded the Ottoman land code in which all agricultural land belonged to the state.



Those who worked the land were in effect hereditary tenants, whose right to the land was usufructuary. Land could be transmitted from father to son, but could not be disposed of otherwise without official permission.



The Immovable Property (Tenure, Registration, and Valuation) Law of 1946 established a legal basis for landholding. All former state lands that had been properly acquired by individuals were declared to be private property;

basil


Joined: 10/04/2009
Posts: 168

Message Posted:
12/12/2010 01:47

Communal land remained the property of villages or towns, and all unoccupied and vacant land not lawfully held (most forest land, for example) became state land.



In 1969, the GC run 'government' fiddled further with land laws, shifting ownership of small plots as they saw fit. Clearly, as the TC minority had no voice in this process, there is doubt as to how fair the process was. By the end of 1988, twenty-eight 'land consolidation projects' had been completed, and thirty-one projects were underway.

Denny


Joined: 09/12/2010
Posts: 261

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 21:07

Basil msg 89 said:



"apc message 86

I didn't imply that you had mentioned the green line - the fact that a British officer who drew it thought a third of the land area of Cyprus should be allocated to Turkish Cypriots hardly suits your half baked theory about 12.5%, does it?"



Just noticed what you said and have to put you right for APC's sake. The Green Line only refers to the CFL (ceasefire line) within City Sector of Nicosia. It was drawn up by the Brits after the intercommunal fighting in 1963 to separate the two sides. The UN inherited this in 1964 and for the next 10 years patrolled all over the island. There was no "north and south" until 1974 when the Turks divided the island and the Buffer Zone was created, so it would be wrong to say the Green Line has anything to do with GC/TC land areas in Cyprus. Reason I know is I was with the UN force there!