A mismanaged expropriation scheme has led to a legal quagmire for one resident
A RESTORATION project by the government to revitalise and repopulate parts of old Nicosia has turned into a financial quagmire for the municipality, which is now trying to rid itself of the houses that it expropriated 18 years ago.
In 1987 the government took over 38 houses in the Chrysaliniotissa area, largely abandoned after the 1974 invasion due to its proximity to the buffer zone. The government claimed that the expropriation was an effort to draw residents back into the neighborhood by renovating the dilapidated homes.
The government offered some compensation to the owners of the 38 homes without offering them the option to keep their homes and undertake the renovation themselves. With the help of UNHCR (now called UNOPS) funds, the government contracted municipal workers to undertake the work and then rented out the homes, now owned by the government.
But because the municipal workers were guaranteed the government contracts and did not have to compete with private firms, the renovation dragged on and costs skyrocketed. In the last ten years alone, upkeep for the 38 homes amounted to £3 million, while rental income amounted to £250,000, one-twelfth of the cost.
The municipality has announced that it intends to sell back 35 of the 38 homes; the government intends to retain custody over three of the buildings because they have been converted into public institutions – a kindergarten, a youth centre, and a cultural centre.
Director of the renovation project, Nicos Nouris has said that the meagre 8.2 per cent recuperation rate on the investments “creates an enormous problem for the municipality”, adding that “enormous sums” are needed to maintain these residencies that are often hundreds of years old. “The problem and the cost of maintenance is very high.”
Nicosia Mayor Michalakis Zampelas told the Sunday Mail that the municipality has proposed to sell the homes back to the original owners, assuming that the state, which owns the homes, consents. No timetable has yet been set for the proposed sale.
If the original owners do not want to buy the houses, the homes would then be placed on public auction, although the renovation project director noted that this could pose problems if a major investor wanted to buy them all up.
But complications also arise regarding the sale to the original owner. Should the original owners, in buying back their former homes, now be responsible to pay for the enormous, and many would say unnecessary, sums of money that the government has spent on the 38 houses?
Or, to make things even more complicated, what if the government only took over half of the house? Christos Christou was studying in the US in 1987 when the government undertook its Chrysaliniotissa expropriation project.
Because an extension had been built, and there had previously been two different owners, Christou owned two title deeds for the house. The government, however, decided to only expropriate one title deed because half of the house was being rented out.
“In my case they did the ridiculous thing of taking ownership of only half the house,” Christou told the Sunday Mail. “So then they repaired the one half and rented it out to me.”
Christou’s father read in the newspaper one day that his son’s house was being expropriated for the public good. “Because I was in the States, my father went and told them that we were willing to undertake the repairs.”
The government refused the request, instead offering Christou a mere £3,000 in exchange for ownership of half of the house. Christou then took legal action against the government, which took 12 years in the courts.
Christou said that the then-mayor, Lellos Demetriades, admitted the government had made a mistake in acquiring half of the house but said the deed could not be returned to him because it would set a precedent for the other former owners to demand their homes back.
“Even the judge told us we were right, but said nothing could be done about it so we should take the settlement.” Instead of £3,000, the government gave Christou £5,000 plus interest for all the years the case was tied up in the court.
Christou repaired his side of the house in seven months at a cost of £30,000. The government spent four years repairing the expropriated half of the house at a cost of £54,000.
“I think it would have cost me £20-25,000 to have done the same repairs they did. It took them four years to fix half a two-bedroom house. We had to fight for them to finish.”
Christou has so far paid £15,000 to rent the half of the house that he once owned. Meanwhile, unlike most renters, he has had to pay for all upkeep.
Most tenants do not pay for renovations since they have no stake in the house. But since Christou owns half of the house, he naturally does not want to watch the other half fall into disrepair.
Christou says that in the last 15 years he has spent at least £10,000 on repairs on the government’s half of the house and has only received £800, a sum that covered the painting of the exterior walls.
“So they say they are renting the house to you but will not maintain it, so if you have problems with plumbing or paints or humidity, it’s your responsibility, not theirs,” Christou said. “This is unusual, because normally if you rent the house to someone, the owner has responsibility for repairs.”
The result was that the houses would fall steadily fall into disrepair until the tenants left, and the government would then undertake the repairs. “Then they come and spend large sums of money since they haven’t been maintaining the house. And the house sits idle for a year as they fix it.”
Christou believes it was a good idea to renovate the houses in the area and draw young people back, but it could have been done in a more efficient and fair manner by at least giving the owners a chance to renovate the homes before expropriating them.
“They could have said that they’ll give incentives or money to fix the houses up, but why did they have to take them over. What is the point of the government owning all those houses?”
Christou wants to know how the government plans to determine the selling price.
“I want to buy it back at a fair price, which would take into account the renovations I have done all these years at my expense, the £15,000 of rent I have paid, as well as the cost difference had I fixed the other half myself with individual contractors, not government workers.
“Do I have to pay for their mismanagement and inefficiency?’
Christou is looking forward to regaining ownership over his entire house, noting that under the present situation he “can’t sell the house, can’t rent the house, can’t do anything with the house. Who in his right mind wants to live in a house that is half owned by one person and half by another?”
But he said that he most of all wants it back because it’s the family home: Christou’s father was born in the kitchen.
“At present I own the living room but not the kitchen. How ridiculous can that be?”
