Are the TC's about to sell the ex-pats down the river?

[Dalartokat]

No I did.

[Keithcaley]

No I did.

Yes, you did - naughty jacob! - Pay attention!

[Dalartokat]

lol...Exactly, when I went to all that effort

[Ragged Robin]

After all, why should the TCs care about the Brit. expats - after they would not be in this situation if Britain had accepted its responsibilities in the 50s , 60s and 70s and sold THEM down the river!

Some (mainly older) Turkish Cypriots do realise that the individual Brit. is not necessarily responsible for nor agrees with the actions of his Government , and even that some (mainly older) British actually have and continue to support their case. Unfortunately too many Turkish Cypriots only see too many expats from the country which abandoned them who only come here for economic or climate reasons and are always moaning about and trying to change their culture.

And what is Britain doing to protect its citizens in the negotiations? except to continue to fail to recognise a fait accompli not to mention continuing to cut consular service to all British( taxpaying) citizens anywhere. By the way, does not compensation work the other way round, what is the situation of Brits who bought pre 1974 Turkish property in South Cyprus. Will they have to pay?

Unfortunately the TCs are in in the classic "between a rock and a hard place" situation. Many have never been happy with the price they had to pay for Turkish intervention/salvation and may well not be very comfortable with current political developments in Turkey. Without international recognition to enable them to be economic they can only look to some form of reunification . I only hope they realise that it is not just the GCs they will be subject to , but the EU and take a very long hard look at what the EU has done for Greece and South Cyprus and, to mix my metaphors as usual, don't jump from the frying pan into the fire.

Tin hat time: Note the words in the second para above "most" and "mainly" and "many": it the cap fits, wear it, but if it doesnt , then my apologies in advance I did not mean you!

[doctor59]

Do think that Guru message 13 makes the most sense. If there was a reunion (here we go again), could be wrong but would think the onus will be back on the TRNC government and Turkey. Seeing as under Article 159 in the Constitution seems they expropriated all GC lands and properties.

[jacob]

No I did.

Yes, you did - naughty jacob! - Pay attention!

Oh bog off

[WotNoDeeds]

Apparently in 1963 before the troubles started and Turkish Cypriots were driven into enclaves by the Greek Cypriots, they owned 31% of the land in Cyprus
and surely this is what should be given back to them in any settlement and what President Akinci should be fighting for.
The North comprises 37% so let the Greek Cypriots keep the South and give them an extra 6% and, hey presto, problem solved. Whenever you read about the property problem, it's always from the Greek Cypriots' standpoint and giving them their land back. What about the Turkish Cypriots, what about their rights?

[Groucho]

Apparently in 1963 before the troubles started and Turkish Cypriots were driven into enclaves by the Greek Cypriots, they owned 31% of the land in Cyprus
and surely this is what should be given back to them in any settlement and what President Akinci should be fighting for.
The North comprises 37% so let the Greek Cypriots keep the South and give them an extra 6% and, hey presto, problem solved. Whenever you read about the property problem, it's always from the Greek Cypriots' standpoint and giving them their land back. What about the Turkish Cypriots, what about their rights?

You are quite right - all sorts of coercion was also used to force TC's to 'sell' their land to GC's who coveted it...

When people quote percentages for population many observers make the mistake of equating those with land ownership without understanding the demographic that a higher percentage of TC's were agricultural land owners and therefore possessed a disproportionate share of the land - farmers tend to own more land than other businesses.

Given that the estimate for the UN policed Green line is 3% the two sides are not that far apart from a deal - but will they? Is there the will?

[erol]

The land figures are disputed, inevitably. Also I believe the figures WotNoDeeds cites are a bit misleading. The figure of 31% is a claimed % of privately owned land where as the 37% is % of land area of Cyprus in total. The two things are not exactly the same. So yes TC did on average own a % of privately owned land greater than their % of the population, for the reasons Groucho mentions above. However any 'fair distribution' of 'state owned' (not private) land would be based on relative populations. These are not simple calculations and they start from disputed figures in the first place.

If you say pre 74 65% of the total land mass of Cyprus was privately owned and 35% state owned (that includes roads and such like as well as state owned land areas, beaches, forests etc) and accept the 31% figure for privately owned TC land and a population % of 18% for TC then by my quick calculations below the % figure for what is 'TC' relative to land mass of Cyprus comes out at 26.45%

total areas of cyprus

3571

total arera of privately owned land (65%)

2321.15

of which 31% is TC - 719.5565

total area of stae owned land (35%)

1249.85

of which 18% is TC -

224.973

Total land mass that is TC (private owned and 18% share of state owned) = 994.5295

994.5295 as a % of total area of cyprus (3571) 26.45%

[turtle]

The majority of people who can vote in TRNC voted for the current regime,... you have to ask yourself if they are selling these talks for a better life and future then so be it but.....they will only get one chance on this!

It would be nice to see "honest" comments from TC or Turk people on here instead of only Brits.
C,mon you TC & Turks what are your views ?

[Muzer]

What happens if either side said no. What happens to the TRNC then, does the UN and or the EU recognise this country? Especially if the TRNC vote yes. Sorry if I've missed it on another thread. Cheers

[turtle]

It's been suggested that some TC's are prepared to pay some compensation on exchange property if it comes to that but what will happen if they lose their property full stop and have to move out altogether, have they thought of that ?

[erol]

What happens if either side said no. What happens to the TRNC then, does the UN and or the EU recognise this country? Especially if the TRNC vote yes. Sorry if I've missed it on another thread. Cheers

This is all speculation but in my personal opinion were there to be another referendum on a solution based on BBF (bi-zonal, bi-communal federation) and the North were to vote yes and the South no, I do not think it would lead to recognition of the TRNC. What I think it would lead to is increasing pressure to start settlement talks based not on BBF but on agreed separation.

[erol]

It's been suggested that some TC's are prepared to pay some compensation on exchange property if it comes to that but what will happen if they lose their property full stop and have to move out altogether, have they thought of that ?

In any proposed settlement some 'current users', be they TC, 'settler', ex-pat or indeed GC, may be required to accept compensation in favour of the pre 74 owners. For me as long as I believe the criteria for making such decisions are fair and the mechanism for making and implementing such decision are reasonable and that compensation rates are also fair, I could and would support such a solution.

[turtle]

But Erol my question was "if you lose your exchange property" I fully understand you would be prepared to pay compensation but what if the GC owner demanded his property back ?... where do you stand on that ?

[erol]

But Erol my question was "if you lose your exchange property" I fully understand you would be prepared to pay compensation but what if the GC owner demanded his property back ?... where do you stand on that ?

I am saying I accept that some 'current users' in some cases may have to give back pre 74 property to the pre 74 owner and themselves take compensation for that loss to them instead. For me it is down to the 'criteria' used for such decisions that defines if I would or would not support such a solution. If the criteria seeks to cause the 'least over all harm' to both parties when there is a conflict of wishes, then I would support that as a criteria, even it it means some 'current users' are obliged to hand back property to a pre 74 owner and them selves take monetary compensation. If the criteria is 'pre 74 owner always take priority over the current user' then I would not support such a solution. So to give a couple of possible scenarios.

Scenario 1. The pre 74 land has on it a house, that the pre 74 owner grew up and lived in and that had been in their family for generations. The 'current user' (the person assigned that property by the TRNC post 74) has not lived in it themselves but they have just rented it out for income. If in a case like this the pre 74 owner wants return and not compensation, then I think they should get priority over the 'current user' and the 'current user' should get monetary compensation.

Scenario 2. Pre 74 the land was 'scrub land', with no buildings on it and used at most pre 74 for grazing of goats. Post 74 the 'current user' built a house on it that is their primary home today and has been since 74. In this case if the pre 74 owner wants return of the land I think the 'current user' should have priority and be allowed to keep the property and the pre 74 owner should have to take instead monetary compensation.

[jofra]

But then (just to muddy the waters still further), using scenario 2 - the post-74 "current user" has now sold the house to another person (and perhaps sold on again?) - who pays the compensation? The house-builder, the second buyer, the third buyer, etc. - or is it the government who granted the land to the housebuilder? Is there - will there be - a point at which the liability stops?
If the actual current owner is held responsible, I can imagine each owner seeking compensation from the previous, and so on down (or up) the line....
The lawyers would love that.......

[erol]

But then (just to muddy the waters still further), using scenario 2 - the post-74 "current user" has now sold the house to another person (and perhaps sold on again?) - who pays the compensation? The house-builder, the second buyer, the third buyer, etc. - or is it the government who granted the land to the housebuilder? Is there - will there be - a point at which the liability stops?

Compensation will be paid from a central state fund or funds. The primary source of the money for such a fund would be the land / property in the south signed over by TC to the TRNC. Other sources for the fund could include, land in the sovereign base areas returned to the Cypriot state by the UK government as part of a settlement. Land in the 'buffer zone'. Land currently used for military bases North and South that will no longer be required. A sales tax on properties of those current users who under the terms of a settlement see their title on property change from 'disputed' to 'recognised', within all of Cyprus and internationally and thus increase in value over night.

[jofra]

I can accept that money could/would be forthcoming from the sale and development of "....land in the sovereign base areas returned to the Cypriot state by the UK government as part of a settlement. Land in the 'buffer zone'. Land currently used for military bases North and South that will no longer be required...." - all this land is (presumably) not in the hands of individuals, and could therefore source a "central" fund.
However, while TC land in the south may have been "signed over" to the TRNC, that is on paper - the real physical land will have been really and physically occupied by real people. Will those people vacate that land, so that it can be sold, to source that same "central" fund? If so, where will they go - or receive compensation from? North or south, if the land is actually occupied, it cannot be a source of money - unless the occupier is evicted....
I suspect additional money would have to come from other sources as well - what about the oil and gas around the island?

[erol]

However, while TC land in the south may have been "signed over" to the TRNC, that is on paper - the real physical land will have been really and physically occupied by real people. Will those people vacate that land, so that it can be sold, to source that same "central" fund? If so, where will they go - or receive compensation from? North or south, if the land is actually occupied, it cannot be a source of money - unless the occupier is evicted....

If a TC pre 74 land in the South that they signed over to the TRNC is unused, then it goes straight into the fund to be used as compensation either directly as land itself or sold or borrowed against as money.

If TC pre 74 land in south signed over to the TRNC is currently being used then there are the following scenarios.

It is being used by a GC who themselves lost land in the North, and they want return of that land and they meet the criteria such that they can have return. In that case they give up their use of the land in the South and it goes into the fund. In essence they 'exchange' back the pre 74 TC property they currently use in the South for getting back their pre 74 property in the North. They do not get their pre 74 land in the North back AND get to keep the pre 74 TC land they currently use in the South.

It is being used by a GC who themselves lost land in the North, but they ether do not want their land returned or they do not meet the criteria for it to be returned. Their compensation for not having their pre 74 North land / property returned could be the land in the South they currently use (but do not have freehold title too). Or it could be some other land in the fund that they deem acceptable, in which case the land they currently use goes into the fund. Or they could want monetary compensation in which case again the TC land they currently use in the South goes into the fund.

It is being used by a business / individual who never themselves lost land as a result of 74. In this case there will be income from that business use (historic, which if it exits in the South's Guardian of TC property body - can go into the fund). Future revenus from renting / leasing this land can go into the funds. Or if the TC wants this land and they meet the criteria to get it, then they can either keep renting it to the business and take the income or the business can be compensated for the loss of any outstanding term on the lease / rental deal. Also if the TC claiming and getting this land back in the South had already exchanged it with the TRNC post 74, then they would loose any land in the North they exchanged for it and that land goes into the fund. If they have taken exchange land in the North for this land already and sold that land in the North, they no longer have any claim on their pre 74 property in the South, only the TRNC / fund does.

Basically the BULK of land settlement is just a netting out and AGREED exchange of property lost in both the North and South. No body gets to 'double bubble'. However there will be a shortfall after this 'netting out' and that is what can be meet from the other sources I suggested (and probably others I have not as well).