Property proposals published in full

Politis today publishes in full the texts of both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot proposals on the property issue, so that those directly concerned can decide for themselves.

“The issue concerns many people, is delicate and technical, society cannot be left to make up its mind through being influenced by the distorting lenses of the TV channels and the press”, the paper says.

Moreover, analysing the Turkish proposals Makarios Droushiotis says that it is an extremely interesting document, which despite having been demonised by the media, also contains positive elements the likes of which have never appeared before in any negotiation of the Cyprus problem, and what’s more they are starting points.

These positive points are:
- recognition of the right of property ownership as it existed before 1974
- the financial responsibility to give compensation will be undertaken by the Turkish Cypriot constituent state.
- compensation will be guaranteed by the Turkish state
- the creative idea of development of Turkish Cypriot property in the south and its exchange.

Negative elements constitute their insistence of strict bizonality that limits restitution or the acquisition of property by Greek Cypriots in the northern part of the island

Droushiotis says that clearly this is not a final document, it is up for negotiation, and it certainly isn’t monstrous as the media and certain politicians would have us think.

Specifically, the T/C side proposes the setting up of three committees on property – the Property Commission that will have the overall responsibility and two sub-committees, one in each constituent state, which will be charged with settling the property issues within their jurisdiction.

The three well-known options are put forward – restitution, exchange or compensation. While restitution remains an option, it is subject to many limitations. Exchange will come under a broader plan of mass development. The greatest emphasis is laid on compensation, but it clearly ensures that the claimant will be compensated, his money will be guaranteed, he will get the money quickly and will be calculated at today’s prices.

The right of restitution will be given to displaced people willing to live under Turkish Cypriot rule. But there will be agreed quotas, both on the total population numbers as well as by community or municipality. The ceiling is negotiable and will be part of the overall agreement. If, for example, the quota is 10% in Kyrenia which has a population today of 50,000 Turkish Cypriots, then 5000 people will be able to return. Whoever chooses to return will be allowed his/her property back provided it was a home and was used before 1974; he/she has full ownership; if it cannot be returned then he will be given land and compensation to build a house of similar value in the same municipality or community. Similar arrangements are proposed for property housing small businesses. As for a person’s remaining property, a part of it will be returned except if it is essential for the survival of the present day user, in which case alternative property of equal value in the same community or municipality will be offered in return.

The document contains a new element entitled “alternative property” for displaced people whose property cannot be returned. This alternative property will come from either from another displaced person who prefers compensation, from government land, church or Evkaf land, or from unclaimed property.

Priorities for restitution will be given to those who choose to move back into their property, displaced people whose permanent home was in the same region, displaced owners who were heads of families; the elderly, people born in the property and who lived in them an x amount of time.

The document proposes the exchange of T/C property in the south with G/C property in the north which cannot be returned. However, it also proposes that such T/C property be developed in order to increase their value. It proposes that Varosha be developed along these lines. It describes this as a “huge solution that can bring vast financial and social benefits”, and gives examples where this has been done elsewhere in the world such as in the Lebanon, Turkey, Brazil, etc. Specifically it propses setting up a Property Development Organisation that will function under the auspices of the Property Commission. It would be responsible for buildings and infrastructure in the regions under development. The organisation will obtain most of the property left by the Turkish Cypriots in the south and who were given property in the north. About 98-99 % of Turkish Cypriots exchanged their property.

Property owners who will not be able to return may apply for compensation. Property which cannot be restituted or exchanged will be eligible for compensation. If the property has been developed it will be compensated with the value of the property minus the development. Church or Evkaf property will be compensated and transferred to the property sub-committees in order to be given to displaced people. As regards houses, current owners will have priority and the owner will be compensated. Property that has been used for public benefit will be compensated. The Church and Evkaf will be allowed full restitution without exception of all the property that was used before 1963 and 1974 as places of worship. If they so wish, they can apply for compensation. Property where the present user has a “lawful interest”, a term that the Turkish side is willing to discuss, will be compensated.
Guaranteed Bonds will be issued in exchange for the title deeds of a property. These bonds will be bought by the constituent state and will be guaranteed. Until these bonds are cashed in, the owner will have ownership of his property. These bonds will be able to be bought and sold or transferred. In order to buy these bonds, each constituent state will set up a fund and will impose a special tax. Part of the profits of the Organisation of Urban Development will end up in this fund. The owner of a bond will be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the property. Any shortfalls will be guaranteed by the Turkish Cypriot constituent state or if necessary by Turkey. The property up for sale can only be bought by citizens of the T/C constituent state. Compensation will be according to today’s prices. Provision is also made for appeals in the event that owners are not satisfied.

The positions submitted by Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu in the negotiations to resolve the Cyprus problem are not bringing the two sides closer, President Demetris Christofias said yesterday, according to the Cyprus Mail.
“When I tell Mr. Eroglu that we have to reunite to celebrate Bayram and Easter together, he agrees,” Christofias said. “But I am sorry to say, the positions he tables do not bring us close at present.”

Christofias said Turkey did not seem ready at this point to solve the Cyprus problem.

“Due to her own domestic and regional problems, which she has created, it appears that Turkey, at least at this point, is not ready to solve the Cyprus problem,” the president said.

He added that Turkey knows that without a fair and viable solution of the Cyprus problem it cannot join the European Union.

“Today we are fighting a tough battle under difficult circumstances to get rid of the occupation and partition,” Christofias said. “Rejection of partition is the fixed parameter of our policy, because partition means catastrophe.”

The continuation of the occupation and the island’s de facto division serves all those forces who aim at partitioning Cyprus, the president said.
“That is why they invest in a fruitless passage of time, stagnation, and deadlock to bolster the faits accompli.

“Partition will be the beginning of new suffering for our country and our people – Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots,” he said. “My promise is fixed and final: we will not yield from our commitment for a bizonal, bicommunal federation, because it is the only way to reunite the country, the people and our economy … to come together again, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, in conditions of peace, cooperation and joint participation in our federal state.”

The period before the referendum was briefly back on our screens on Tuesday night, as all the TV stations went into misinformation mode, says the Cyprus Mail’s satirical column Coffeeshop. They took the bits of the Turkish proposals on the property issue that they knew would terrify people and then tried to generate mass hysteria.

The news shows were celebrations of abject negativity, last witnessed in 2004, when the TV stations were competing in the misinformation stakes for the worthy cause of defeating the satanic A-plan and saving the Republic from extinction.
The bash-patriotic politicians proved reliable allies. On Wednesday Edek chief Yiannakis Omirou described the Turkish proposals as “infuriatingly provocative and intransigent.” He said the proposals were unacceptable and “they were not worthy of comment or discussion, least of all at the negotiating table.”
On Thursday morning, after repeating all his funky stuff on a radio show, Omirou was asked if he had read the document containing the Turkish proposals on property and said ‘no’.

Listening to the AKEL chief Andros Kyprianou talking on the radio yesterday morning I concluded that he must be Omirou’s next-door neighbour on cloud cuckoo land. While divulging his banal views about the talks, Andros said he felt obliged to issue a warning. He said that the “climate of euphoria” that had been created as a result of the two days of intensive talks was not justified. Where had Andros identified a climate of euphoria? On TV, on the streets or in the Akelite coffeeshops? The only climate is the familiar one of fear, loathing, negativity, disgust, hostility, anger, pessimism, some humidity and sweltering heat, but euphoria?The climate of euphoria will set in when the talks collapse and the danger of an unfair settlement is seen off; not while the Turks are submitting infuriatingly provocative proposals.