This doesn't force anyone's hand. If people don't want to live in Paris, that's their choice. No one is kidnapping them and shoving them in these apartments.
On the other hand, if they want to, they have an avenue to do this (and it's still going to be difficult, supply isn't nearly as plenty as the private market), even if they don't have the income needed to find housing in the same area otherwise.
> They're not some pawn you can use to feel good about yourself
That's not the reason Paris is doing this. There are benefits to encouraging diversity, among which fighting against getthoisation/communitarianism and prejudices, things that France has quite a poor records with in the last 50 years, and that had direct consequences on society cohesion.
Let's not use euphemisms. You're encouraging a certain racial and identity makeup of a city. It's literally the same policies that led to ghettoization. I don't want (often unelected) bureaucrats to put their finger on the scale on who can live in an area. It's not wrong because it was used to exclude [group] from certain areas, it's wrong on principle. And if we allow that power to the state, there's no reason it won't be used by someone with ideals that don't align with yours
First things first, we're talking about income-based public housing attribution. Not racial. Although if policies in the past means ethnic minorities have been disadvantaged all other things considered, then that will overlap, but as a consequence, not by design.
Secondly, Paris' policies are decided by the mayor of Paris and the city council, and they're elected (mayor directly, city council semi-directly). Not by "unelected bureaucrats".
Then your comment makes no sense. Policies favoring social diversity are the exact same policies that led to getthoisation? Do we agree on what getthoisation means? Because those two things are exclusive.
You say you don't want bureaucrats to put their finger on the scale of who can live in an area, that's your opinion. But if you're saying this should be purely left to supply and demand, then somewhat it is still a (non-)decision to put the finger on the scale, at one extremity, and it will have a certain outcome. Whether this outcome is good or bad will be a matter of opinion in certain cases, but not in others, e.g. what impact this has on the local economy for example, whether this leads to a more or less appeased society, and so on.
On the other hand, if they want to, they have an avenue to do this (and it's still going to be difficult, supply isn't nearly as plenty as the private market), even if they don't have the income needed to find housing in the same area otherwise.
> They're not some pawn you can use to feel good about yourself
That's not the reason Paris is doing this. There are benefits to encouraging diversity, among which fighting against getthoisation/communitarianism and prejudices, things that France has quite a poor records with in the last 50 years, and that had direct consequences on society cohesion.