Read on Twitter
Beyond concerns over civil liberties, what's fascinated me most about this bizarre obsession with fine-grained tracking/control over movement gripping city political leadership, is the discordance with those leaders' current/complete lack of control over physical infrastructure
To borrow a phrase, it appears to be a phenomenon best described as "tech solutionism as escapism."
Or, "If only we could harness and control of these new technologies, some that don't yet exist, perhaps that will paper over the fact that we've completely failed to manage the things we've spent the last century building and, theoretically, have total authority over."
This tension shows up over and over again, but was so succinctly articulated here, by Los Angeles' former taxi regulator arguing for the city's need for an air traffic control system for low altitude aircraft as an existential city crisis.
Don't get me wrong, I too hate drones, and I hate the idea of zillions of rich folks flying around cities in eVTOLs, skipping over traffic jams and failing transit infrastructure, even more.
But I'm more concerned about city leaders becoming obsessed with bad things on the margins of urban life, rather than taking responsibility for failures at the core that affect us all like horrifically unsafe, unjust, and intentionally discriminatory infrastructure and policy.
Those failures aren't the result of corporate greed or technological determinism gone awry. They're the consequence of failed public institutions and leaders who have been unable to articulate the shared sense of responsibility that should drive the design of our communities.
To borrow another phrase, what's currently driving city politics isn't leadership, it's a form of (elite) constituent services.
The reason bike lanes don't connect (or don't exist) isn't accidental or the consequence ineptitude.
It's because the city reflects the desires of those with political power.
It's because the city reflects the desires of those with political power.
I've seen this first hand in my own work.
I started pushing city leaders to regulate companies like Uber in 2013, focusing on the labor and consumer protection failures at the core of these business models.
I started pushing city leaders to regulate companies like Uber in 2013, focusing on the labor and consumer protection failures at the core of these business models.
In one particularly telling meeting with the chair of the DC City Council's transportation committee, they explained that they agreed with me about the labor failures and injustice at the core of these business model, but structural regulation was simply off the table.
Not because Uber as a corporation was too powerful, but because their customers were too powerful.
Indeed, that council member represented some of the most wealthy and powerful people on earth and realized regulating something voters enjoyed might end their political career.
Indeed, that council member represented some of the most wealthy and powerful people on earth and realized regulating something voters enjoyed might end their political career.
Fast forward to 2020 and we now know that structural regulation is an existential necessity for a whole swath of industries transforming urban life.
Yet at the local level we do not see proposals for structural reform proposed.
Yet at the local level we do not see proposals for structural reform proposed.
Instead we get sci-fi fantasies about real-time control and surveillance allowing city leaders to take control of their streets and Make Things Work.
But this obsession with technology is nothing but escapism to avoid confrontation with what's really at the core of this: power.
But this obsession with technology is nothing but escapism to avoid confrontation with what's really at the core of this: power.
I've followed the legal and political history of AB 5 and Prop 22 with great interest, hoping that it was a sign that the kind of structural reform I'd pushed cities to implement in 2013 was finally on the horizon.
It wasn't.
One the most fascinating aspects of AB 5's passage was the almost complete absence of city voices in the legislative record. California cities were too busy arguing for the constitutional right to scooter GPS data to be bothered helping Uber drivers earn higher wages.
One the most fascinating aspects of AB 5's passage was the almost complete absence of city voices in the legislative record. California cities were too busy arguing for the constitutional right to scooter GPS data to be bothered helping Uber drivers earn higher wages.
After its passage and the legal battles leading up to Prop 22 began cities did join the state AG's lawsuit. But their arguments focused on forgone unemployment insurance revenue, an acute fiscal concern in a pandemic-ravaged world, not the need for structural reform of transport
Why should city transport officials care about labor policy?
Well, one of the biggest externalities of TNCs is deadheading miles, and because of how these companies structure labor they don't carry that inefficiency on their balance sheet. Instead drivers eat the cost.
Well, one of the biggest externalities of TNCs is deadheading miles, and because of how these companies structure labor they don't carry that inefficiency on their balance sheet. Instead drivers eat the cost.
But wellbeing of driver's is not an issue politicians engaged in (elite) constituent services are responsive to. And even if it is a path to structural reform of companies they dislike, increasing prices paid by passengers is a political nonstarter.
(You might respond, but labor policy is a state issue and cities don't have a say in that! Untrue. In California cities have the legal authority to set minimum wages, and even to investigate employee misclassification, the policy issue at the core of AB 5. They just chose not to)
Tech solutionism gives failed leaders an escape hatch.
They can argue for ineffective interventions like real-time surveillance of citizens as a way to appear to be Doing Something, while avoiding real and politically contentious fights over actually consequential interventions
They can argue for ineffective interventions like real-time surveillance of citizens as a way to appear to be Doing Something, while avoiding real and politically contentious fights over actually consequential interventions
This is how we get the mayor of the second largest city in the US arguing for the unilateral real-time authority over airspace (to control a flying vehicle technology that does not yet exist), while they are incapable of mustering the political authority to build bike lanes.
Tech solutionism as escapism, pure and simple.
TBC I owe the borrowed phrases above to @anabmap and @AsherDeMontreal but wanted to spare their Sunday morning from tagging them in earlier in the thread. But recommend following them both!
