Prime Minister Edi Rama has chosen an unusual way to defend the Mountains Package: he turned to ChatGPT to obtain an explanation of the law. Through this approach, the version presented by the head of government insists that the initiative does not open the way for major investors, but is intended for families who for years have lived and worked on land that has not been formalized.
The government tries to shift the debate
According to the explanation read by Rama, the main criticism of the Mountains Package is linked to the suspicion that the law was built for oligarchs, major investors or foreigners. In this version, those claims are presented as legally unsupported.
The argument put forward is that the mechanism of the law requires actual possession of the land for at least 10 years, a condition which under this interpretation does not serve those newly entering the market or seeking to benefit through a fast-track procedure. However, the very use of an artificial intelligence platform to publicly defend a law has raised more questions than it has closed the debate.
Who is said to benefit from the law
According to the version presented by the prime minister, the real subject of the Mountains Package is families in areas such as Theth, Vermosh, Zagoria, Lunxhëria or Mokra, which have inherited land and used it for generations, but have not managed to formalize it.
In this logic, the law is presented as an instrument that gives these families the opportunity to develop their property, obtain loans, build legally or establish agritourism activities. The government claims this is capital blocked by the lack of property titles.
The claim regarding foreigners and major investors
In the argument presented, it is said that the law does not create a privileged category for foreign citizens. The condition of long-term possession, according to this interpretation, excludes most foreign investors coming to Albania today.
It is also argued that a person with substantial capital can invest even without this package, so the law, according to the government, was not drafted for the wealthy. This is the point where political and public objections are expected to remain strong, because the real debate is not closed merely by the wording of a condition in the legal text, but by how it is implemented on the ground.
The debate over land for 1 euro
One of the most discussed points remains the formula of land for 1 euro. In the explanation made public, it is argued that the state is not selling the land to collect revenue, but is giving it to the possessor through a legal contract, while registration of the property comes after construction is completed.
Along the same line, it is said that the land is not automatically given away, because possession, legality, project approval, fulfillment of contractual conditions and completion of the investment must all be proven. If these do not happen, according to this version, the land remains state property and the consequences provided for in the contract and in the legislation apply.
Resorts or local economy?
In its defense of the Mountains Package, the government also tries to push back against the idea that the law favors only resorts. According to this interpretation, the targeted projects include agritourism, guesthouses, farms, artisan workshops, processing of local products, sports activities and family tourism.
It is also claimed that the law does not affect formalized private property, but operates on state property with actual possessors or in situations where a property title is missing. Possible property conflicts, according to the official version, remain to be handled through the existing legal mechanisms.
At its core, the defense Rama made of the Mountains Package through ChatGPT aims to present the law as a solution for families that have inherited land but do not have property documents.
But beyond this interpretation, the questions that have accompanied the law remain open: who really benefits, how possession will be verified in practice, and how strong the guarantees are that this scheme will not turn into a new door for abuse of public property.