> One quarter of residents in the French capital now live in government-owned housing, part of an aggressive effort to keep lower-income Parisians — and their businesses — in the city.
I think they meant "...and their votes"
I think they meant "...and their votes"
This is generally true, but there is a line beyond which this becomes problematic.
Surely you wouldn't support explicit vote buying, where a politician promised to repay voters with public cash after the election! If such a scheme were permitted, democracy would quickly cease to become a marketplace for ideas. It would devolve into a patronage system. Most of us would immediately recognize such a scheme as dangerous and question the legitimacy of any so-called democratic government whose majority was bought in such a manner. Do you agree that this would be a problem?
Why would this cease to be a problem if the kickbacks were paid in-kind, and only made available to the poor?
That said, city planning is a complex thing so there's no easy answer to whether they are doing this.
The political theory is true but I have no idea if the people living in social housing do vote more for the current mayor though. So it is just theory.