Only 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).

Since when is encouraging people to be priced out “good for the country”?

> aren’t politicians supposed to do stuff that they think people will vote for?

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?

No, 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.

Haven't they advocated for public housing and people voted them because of it?

Politicians 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.

there are laws against giving financial incentives to voters... but they have been long forgotten