4 ms·
> 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 b
by cm2187 3y ago
> 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"
- tetris11 3y agoexpand?
- eschulz 3y agoThe article mentions a woman who wept with joy when she received a "steal" of a lease for a new government owned building, and the article mentions that certain political parties have made this program a priority. Perhaps this woman will support such political parties with her vote in future elections.
- cm2187 3y agoThe socialists who control the city have a majority but not a structural one (Paris was voting conservative for a long time). The gentrification of Paris would normally deplete their electorate, so you can see their efforts to buy prime real estate at high price to convert it to social housing as a very expensive vote-buying exercise.
- teloli 3y agoOr perhaps they try to do what socialists are supposed to be doing, namely giving the people a place where they can live.
- maeln 3y agoNot the same guy, but if a class of people have to move out of the city because they are being priced-out, they will not vote in this city anymore (but in their new city in the suburb), shifting the current political balance. The current Paris mayor is from the Parti Socialiste (left-wing / moderate left-wing - for France), and may get a lot of their vote from the working class people living in Parisian social housing. Therefor, they have an active interest in keeping them within the city. 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.
- arlort 3y agoThey're saying it's done as an electoral bribe so that the people who benefit from this policy will vote for the party who did it
- ketzo 3y agoPeople always say this like a gotcha, but aren’t politicians supposed to do stuff that they think people will vote for?
- ekianjo 3y agothere are laws against giving financial incentives to voters... but they have been long forgotten
- wheybags 3y agoNo, I want my politicians to declare what they want to do, and then I choose which one I agree with. I do not want them to get elected, then try to do what people want. That's backwards.
- rmbyrro 3y agoHaven't they advocated for public housing and people voted them because of it?
- cm2187 3y agoOnly if it is good for the country, otherwise it is at best demagogy, at worst corruption. And in this case borderline with gerrymandering (not by pushing constituency limits but by engineering a change in demographics).
- redserk 3y agoSince when is encouraging people to be priced out “good for the country”?
- marcosdumay 3y agoPoliticians aren't supposed to manipulate the voters set by moving people around by decree. That said, city planning is a complex thing so there's no easy answer to whether they are doing this.
- marcusverus 3y ago