
SF to Establish Office of Emerging Technology - Reedx
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-to-establish-office-of-emerging-technology/
======
aphextron
Just one more nail in the coffin for SF/bay area as an innovation center. It's
been really sad to see that rent seeking and bureaucracy have completely
choked that place out. I'm not sure if there will ever be another time and
place like existed in silicon valley from the 70s-2000s where forward thinking
creative individuals can come together in a critical mass, with an environment
that allows risk taking and innovation. Maybe it will/is happening outside the
US but I don't think it's here anymore.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Silicon Valley proper (Palo Alto to San Jose) is still alive and well. All
sorts of cool things happening in the corridor between Stanford and Santa
Clara, as they have since radar and transistors were invented there a half
century ago.

Startups locating in SF was done more recently because young startup employees
wanted more of a city-based, young adult social life, vs the more college
student or family-oriented one in Silicon Valley. But if SF is choking itself
out, those startups will just move back down to South Bay/Silicon Valley or in
some cases the Berkeley/Oakland area.

SF screwing itself up as an innovation hub isn't the best thing for the Bay
Area, but it's far from the end of the Bay Area as a whole as an innovation
center.

~~~
DrScump

      since radar and transistors were invented there a half century ago.
    

Radar was not an SV invention. There were many attempts at radar worldwide,
but I (an SV native, BTW) would credit the UK first, especially with their
invention of the cavity magnetron.

------
SkyMarshal
One problem with this is that's ex-ante, not ex-post. Eg, it asks a bunch of
bureaucrats to evaluate a technology before it's deployed, before they and the
public get to see how it actually works, as if they have some insight into the
relative pros and cons and public reception of an innovative new thing in its
formative stages. Not very empirical.

A better ex-post structure would be to blacklist/regulate something after the
fact, only after it's evident that its public harm outweighs its public
benefit. For things that are quite obviously harmful, like toxic/medical waste
handling and stuff of that nature, there are already ordinances in place for
that.

But most tech businesses are not that obviously harmful, and strict ex-ante
regulation of them will stymie creativity more than protect the public.

It also prematurely shuts down possible systemic adaption. For example, the
introduction of Scooters and eBike rentals in SF started a conversation there
about whether the city should ban cars for anyone who is not a resident of SF.

Eg, build a bunch of parking garages ringing the outskirts of the city, and
anyone coming to SF who doesn't live there, either has to take CalTrain/BART
into the city, or park at a garage on the outskirts and take
Muni/BART/train/car service/taxi/scooter/bike/etc. into the city.

That was an interesting discussion worth having, but ex-ante blacklisting of
new tech will reduce the impetus for that kind of innovative solution finding
and public discussion.

~~~
pfletcherhill
This is a great take.

------
rubbingalcohol
finally the city is doing something about those whizz-kid whippersnappers and
their goofy gizmos. i'm tired of shaking my cane at these freaks when they
blast by me on an electric ouija board or whatever new-fangled gadget is in
mode this week. between this and the city banning all new housing
developments, we're finally going to clean up the problems that really
threaten quality of life here.

~~~
SomeOtherThrow
This is about JUUL.

Also, if you don’t know what’s happening with development, please do not vote.

~~~
Axsuul
Pretty sure the parent comment was being satirical.

~~~
SomeOtherThrow
His point was well taken. Nobody is against development; this is
misinformation.

~~~
wpasc
Nobody is against housing development in San Francisco? It is not really a
controversial position that it is very difficult to build new housing supply.
There have been numerous well studied articles on this fact and a variety of
first hand accounts from real estate developers who have had enormous
difficulty in building new housing in the bay area.

edit: candidates may run on new housing development as it easy an easy thing
to say and run on. But when rubber meets the road, local planning boards and
strict zoning requirements mean translate into orders of magnitude less
development than people would like or the market would have.

there are both city wide studies and the specific examples like the infamous
laundromat or garage-door based house that are deemed too historic or
architecturally significant (standards that would not hold up else anywhere in
the nation)

for info on the two examples, google "Largent House" or "SF Mission Laundromat
redevelopment"

~~~
SomeOtherThrow
Look at the D5 race. All the candidates are pro development, the discussion is
about to what extent this should happen via mixed rate units vs market rate.

As for what people want... is there any good way to be run out of town because
you don’t have money? Unrestricted development wouldn’t address the needs of
current residents at all and would result in people being forced out in
addition to creating more homeless.

~~~
DuskStar
I think you're missing the point. Everyone _says_ they're pro-development,
sure. But what politicians say and what actually happens are two very
different things.

------
rayiner
> Before any new tech device is used, tested or piloted in The City, the
> office would coordinate the review with relevant departments and would
> “issue a Notice to Proceed if the net result is for the common good,”
> according to the announcement.

This sounds like a fantastic idea. - The Rest of the Country

------
dalbasal
This aside, it might be useful to have the opposite as well (or instead).

Ie: Some portion of some city designated friendly and relatively unregulated
_for_ the testing of new technologies in public spaces... Like the Chinese
special economic zones, but smaller scale.

Instead of arguing about what approach is unequivocally better, we can just
have some of both. This isn't like housing where market fungibility makes it
impossible (unadvisable) to have uncoordinated policies, There will still be
people living there who don't like it, but you have that regardless. There
will also be an element of choice, to the extent that people can/will move.

~~~
generalpass
The actual function of China's special economic zones is control, not freedom.

Passing into one is identical to passing through an international checkpoint,
with minor differences. When driving, the guards basically ignore white people
and party members while non-party members have to pull over and go through
full scanning and scrutiny to prove they are allowed to enter.

Once in the zone, setting up any kind of business that requires actual capital
equipment is completely impossible for anyone who is not a party member.

Even for party members it is close to impossible. China is actually highly
regional with provinces having a lot of power. You have to get permission from
the province to do anything, and the local powerful elite will only permit
those they can control to establish industry.

With this in place, they do not have to care about anyone outside of these
zones, so they are free to enact whatever brutal policies they desire.

Special economic zones are only for powerful, rich, and well-connected.
Everyone else loses.

------
Aperocky
This really fits in the greater scenario that:

Once an emerging technology has gotten popular enough (no longer limited to
few inventors and early adoptors). You've got people that understand barely
anything about it trying to get a slice of a pie. This can come in any
directions, some of it as job applicants/VC management deals, some of it
posing as regulatory bodies, and it happens both inside and outside of the
company/circle that created tech.

Sometimes it works out as the new tech is competitive enough to absorb the
cost of these overheads, other times it just sink with edge/non-contributing
members sucking the blood out of it.

------
yonran
Here is the file for the proposed ordinance
([https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4160578...](https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4160578&GUID=A34634A0-B49E-4ED1-86A0-675FBF5A3476)).
Any company operating an “Emerging Technology Device” is required to apply for
a $2,006 permit prior to operating on sidewalks and public rights of way, and
these devices are limited to 3mph, are prohibited from parking on the
sidewalk, and are required to operate only on sidewalks wider than 6ft. Any
violations are subject to $1,000 per day administrative fine, $500 per day
civil penalties, and up to $500 per day criminal penalties. The definition of
“Emerging Technology” means any new technology which has characteristics
including a “beta” label or absence of a federal or state safety
certification. The permit application is subject to a public hearing. The OET
Director is required to evaluate, e.g., “effects… on public health, safety,
welfare, and convenience,” “whether the Emerging Technology … are likely to
have a measurable economic and/or social impact in the three- to ten-year
period following the use,” “effects … on the labor market,” etc., and the OET
Director may reject applications on the basis of these potential impacts.

In my opinion, this definition of “Emerging Technology” is vague and expansive
enough that Public Works employees could give you a $1000 ticket for playing
Pokémon Go, wearing Google Glass, operating an electric skateboard, or perhaps
even vaping.

The author, Norman Yee, is the councilman who in May 2017 became alarmed at
autonomous delivery robots on the sidewalks and introduced an ordinance that
required delivery robot startups to apply for a permit, capped them to 9
testing robots per permit, and required an operator to be present at all times
([https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/o0244-17.pdf](https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/o0244-17.pdf)).

Relatedly, councilman Aaron Peskin introduced ordinances to require permits
for bike rentals on the sidewalk in Feb. 2017
([https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/o0081-17.pdf](https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/o0081-17.pdf))
and for scooter rentals on the sidewalk in March 2018
([https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/o0099-18.pdf](https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/o0099-18.pdf)).

------
say_it_as_it_is
And this is how Democratic voters become Republicans..

Never pitch this office. These people are trying to centralize control and
create a political elite-- insiders who may pass through their imaginary gates
to the city. Pay to play.

~~~
avocado4
> Never pitch this office

If you didn't get the memo, it won't be optional. If you come up with any idea
on how to improve anything at all around you, better run it by Norman Yee
first. Now get your ticket and wait in line for a few weeks to get reviewed.

------
BurningFrog
No mention of the scope. What types of emerging technology falls under this
office? Will it require approving every new app used within city limits?

My cynical take is that this is just another gatekeeper to pay off and
appease. The city wants more money from tech.

~~~
shuckles
No the purpose of this legislation is to provide a one stop shop for
businesses that would have to interact with city departments anyways: scooters
with SFMTA, rental startups with DBI or planning. It is not in theory supposed
to be a gatekeeper for businesses that can operate independently of local
regulation, though Mar has written bad legislation before.

The Hacker News outrage is non-sensical. These are businesses that would have
to interact with the city no matter what; a single department instead of many
is a strict improvement from status quo. The United States used to have an
office of emerging technology too, and it was for the most part very good.
Their reports are fun to read.

~~~
BurningFrog
I'm not ruling out that you're right. Only time will tell, I guess.

Though, if this is such a reasonable, common sense idea, there must be other
cities that have also implemented something like it. What are their track
records?

~~~
shuckles
This is a great question, and I wish it were the direction the larger
discussion took instead of hysteria. I'm not sure about other examples, and
the USA's office of emerging technology was more of an advisory body to
Congress than a regulatory invention. I'm not certain that any city has had
quite the mix of bureaucratic morass and eager solutionism of San Francisco. A
single point of contact with latitude to interpret existing law for new use
cases is, per many, the advantage of more authoritarian governments. It would
maybe behoove our community to capture this office and use it to preempt more
conservative city departments.

This is coverage of the proposal from a year ago. It is the outcome of a
process to actually _improve_ what everyone can agree was a totally disastrous
rollout of scooters in SF, with blame to be assigned to both the city and
operators:
[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/01/11/eme...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/01/11/emerging-
technologies-scooters-uber-lyft-robots.html)

Furthermore, the above makes it even more clear that the proposal only applies
to people who are trying to test products that use sidewalk and road spaces.

------
cameldrv
> Before any new tech device is used, tested or piloted in The City, the
> office would coordinate the review with relevant departments and would
> “issue a Notice to Proceed if the net result is for the common good,”
> according to the announcement.

This is exactly how the Amish do it. The elders evaluate new technologies and
decide if the technology will help or harm the community before authorizing
it.

------
undefined3840
Too comical. Scooters are a threat to society but not record level property
crime, car break ins, and opioid addiction and mental health issues among the
homeless

~~~
wpasc
Not to mention re emergence of medieval diseases like Typhoid [1], large and
widely spread amount of human feces (which is a biohazard), and lack of
housing supply which contributes to untenable housing costs.

[1]: [https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/typhus-
tu...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/typhus-tuberculosis-
medieval-diseases-spreading-homeless/584380/)

~~~
undefined3840
Yep. Can’t wear sandals anywhere either for fear of stepping into a used
needle and contracting something.

~~~
shuckles
Counter-point: every fourth person wearing Birkenstocks this weekend.

~~~
wpasc
Counter-counter-point, of course you'll see people in open footwear but in
many busy, populated areas (especially near where people work) such as around
market, civic center, soma you'll see needles and feces everywhere. Open toed
shoes near those things is probably unadvisable

~~~
shuckles
That's not a counter-point, it's movement of goalposts.

------
marter
Needs an office of picking up trash. That city is disgusting.

------
carapace
I sometimes watch SFGOVTV [https://sfgovtv.org/](https://sfgovtv.org/)

You can literally see the sausage being made.

You know what? These folks don't seem like mustache-twirling Machiavellian
monsters to me. They seem like people just like you and me that are doing
their best to manage a city. It's not easy.

We techno-elite have been shouting "Disruption!" in their faces for about two
decades now, eh? So here's the counter-reaction, the pushback. If you don't
like it, participate. Maybe I'll see _you_ on SFGOVTV.

~~~
BurningFrog
Not saying SF politicians are monsters per se, but Machiavellian monsters
don't look like it in real life.

That's one of the first rules of Machiavellianism.

------
tangsta
If anyone wants to actually participate in the public comment portion, check
out this thread:
[https://twitter.com/YvonneLeow/status/1183231713843077122?s=...](https://twitter.com/YvonneLeow/status/1183231713843077122?s=20)

------
avocado4
This is incredibly demoralizing for somebody trying to pursue their dreams in
San Francisco as an entrepreneur.

~~~
quotemstr
> in San Francisco

Why would you choose that city of all places though? The bay area as a whole
is dysfunctional and San Francisco doubly so. You can do more elsewhere. I can
understanding staying for the sake of family ties or an existing bigcorp job,
if you're free, why would you use that freedom to walk into a nightmare?

~~~
avocado4
What is the alternative?

SF is flush with VC money and rich customers eager to try new products. Add to
that the perfect weather, quality of life, and ability to get around without a
car. There's no better place still, by far.

As somebody who lived in Europe, China, Israel, and the US, I have no
attachment whatsoever. I would move in a heartbeat I there was viable
alternative. I sincerely wish there was one.

------
dmckeon
Hmm - will the OET offer NDAs for companies, or perhaps be able to leak plans
and details to prospective competitors? Staying tuned.

------
jpochtar
Welcome to New York! [1]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0N3C6DsisQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0N3C6DsisQ)

~~~
avocado4
Too hot in summer and too cold in winter. Not enough VC money relatively to
SF. Otherwise I'd move.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Lack of humidity is a huge advantage for the west coast.

------
Decade
This legislation has only been introduced. It will take months before it is
passed into law, and in the meanwhile you can protest at its hearing dates,
whenever they get scheduled, and lobby your local Supervisor to defeat it.

I do put its chances of passing pretty high, though. The veto-proof majority
of the Board of Supervisors are anti-capitalists who hate individual freedom.
They’ve been agitating for this law for quite some time now.

~~~
SomeOtherThrow
Excuse me, we hate individual freedom of rich assholes such as landlords,
developers, and JUUL. You’re free to blow vape smoke in Tom Ammiano’s face.

------
crb002
Void for vagueness.

------
abtinf
Directive 10-289:

In the name of the general welfare, to protect the people's security, to
achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of
the national emergency that:

Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever
shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be
dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty
shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by
the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching
the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall
assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the
interests of the nation.

Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business
establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation,
and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor
close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization
of their establishment and of any and all of their property.

Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices,
inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be
turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift
Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and
copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents
and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the
purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products
and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names
or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be
known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such
name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand
names are hereby abolished.

Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature
whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured
or sold after the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights
is hereby suspended.

Point Five. Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in
production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount
of goods per year as it, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more
and no less. The year to be known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the
year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be
fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

Point Six. Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth
spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she
spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing
shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates
and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present
figures, as of the date of this directive.

Point Eight. All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in
this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board,
whose decisions will be final.

~~~
geofft
I agree with the goals of this directive, but it's written in a deliberately
silly way. No non-fictional agency would put restrictions on _increasing_
production or _creating_ new technology. On the contrary, abolish the USPTO
and let people invent all they want, but the new inventions can be used freely
by anyone for the good of the country, too.

Preventing people like d'Anconia from shutting down their manufacturing sites
seems reasonable in the abstract, but in a world where so much interesting
technology is digital and therefore copiable, what's the need? If Steve Jobs
wished to torpedo Apple, that's fine, we've got enough other OSes.

Moreover, it's quite clear that much of the interesting and productive
technology of our generation has come from people with no profit motive. AT&T
was legally forbidden from profiting from UNIX, so UNIX became a standard.
Netscape failed to make money and became reborn as the donation-supported
Firefox, which immediately became better than Netscape could have been. And so
forth.

~~~
golemotron
Googling "Directive 10-289" would give you more context.

~~~
geofft
I'm aware of the context, as you might have been able to tell from my mention
of d'Anconia.

~~~
golemotron
Sorry, I missed that.

