Cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration, Part 3

[Commentary] As the candidates lay out their plans for the country, cities and technology should be at the heart of the conversation about economic growth and social progress. They should articulate both a strategy and specific ideas about how to accelerate the ability of cities to use new technology to achieve those goals. Here are five such ideas.

1) A Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) for cities -- We need a long-term institution dedicated to helping cities understand the impact of directions in science and technology.
2) An access initiative -- As we look back at the history of communications networks, the deployment of networks capable of offering faster, better, and cheaper services always requires a new capital-allocation decision. This is generally done by a private-sector party but often follows government decisions that lower the cost of deployment or operations and/or increase potential revenue and competition. A continuing challenge, however, lies in assuring access to essential facilities.
3) A tax/next-generation network investment deal -- There is a bipartisan consensus that our tax code needs updating to reflect changes in the economy since the last comprehensive reform thirty years ago. The chances for such a bill are not high; neither are they non-material. In that light, cities should advocate that any such effort ought to be used to accelerate investment in next generation, long-term infrastructure.
4) A government IP transition with an adoption surge -- The next administration should move the United States to the top tier in e-government delivery and broadband adoption.
5) In-Q-Tel4Equity -- When the CIA came to believe it needed to be more intentional about the direction of technology, they created a venture capital fund called In-Q-Tel, opened an office in Silicon Valley, and provided venture capital to tap commercial technology. The Pentagon recently followed with its own Silicon Valley office and fund. They are investing in technology they are interested in buying, and thus they both make money on the investment side and accelerate the deployment of technology they want. The federal government should do the same to tap developing technology to address the needs of low-income communities in health, education, job training, and other areas. While there are good, voluntary existing efforts, nothing concentrates the entrepreneurs’ mind like some old-fashioned venture capital.
[Levin is a nonresident senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program. This is the third in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration.]