Bridging the Tech-Government Divide
Or, Letters to Elon; Memos to Leslie
Decoding the Tech-Government Disconnect
There is a staggering gap between technologists—the so-called early adopters who leap to the latest innovations—and public servants in government. These are the dedicated non-political staff who have weathered countless shiny tech trends: Big data! Blockchain! 3D Printing! Drones! Autonomous Vehicles! Each wave promised transformation, each ultimately failing to live up to the hype.
On one side, technologists eagerly ask: “Why wouldn't you want to use the latest technology?” On the other, the agency IT managers respond: “Why would I want to get burned again by cost multipliers, under-delivery, and a need to retrain my staff?”
These opposing “Why’s” reflect more than a communication breakdown—they expose a fundamental disconnect in understanding why technology is pursued at all. This missing shared understanding explains why so many government technology and innovation efforts have spectacularly failed to deliver, while readily-available tools and techniques remain stubbornly outside the public sector’s ability to integrate them.
Seeing this chasm clearly can lead to despair, as if the worlds were too far apart, with the only path seemingly to break-it-all-down-and-start-over. Yet within this divide lies an opening for developing common understanding. Through clearer language, refined conceptual models, and some evocative imagery, we can begin to bridge the gap—creating a shared approach for building possibilities and defining the underlying “Why” when deploying technology in public service.
Schrödinger's Election Results
I found it impossible to discern the competing futures in the weeks leading up to the election: of disruption vs. institutionalism, break-it-down vs. incrementalism. I finally found the right framing to engage the dueling inspirations separately on Election Day, while the New York Times’ Presidential Election Needle still showed the race as a “Tossup.” Taking a cue from Schrödinger’s classic, absurd thought exercise, I superpositioned those two equally likely—at that point—political outcomes, closed my laptop to keep myself in suspense, took out my word processor, and started writing this newsletter.
That exercise uncovered two core perspectives I aim to explore: one directed at technologists trying to engage with government, and the other at public servants grappling with technology’s promises and pitfalls.
Letters to Elon
The first, “Letters to Elon,” treats Elon Musk as both a figure representative of technologists, techno-optimists, Californian Ideologues, and Crypto bros, and simultaneously a singular individual promising to remake government through efficiency, while possessing a unique track record of delivering on his outrageous pronouncements.
In this thread, I will translate nuances of the public sector for those individuals and firms either trying to “help” government or developing transformative visions for the future. This will include diving into the background of how and why agencies operate as they do—from legitimate to less defensible practices—and the associated downstream impacts. Based on my decade+ translating technology across sectors, I hope to provide some helpful communication approaches & frameworks to demonstrate resonance between tech solutions and public interest.
Memos to Leslie
The second newsletter perspective is geared towards those in or adjacent to government, attempting to both convince them of the value of “technology” and provide some defense of the tech crowd, which repeatedly has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the mission, operations, or strictures of government. Simultaneously, I aim to give executive branches, agency leadership, and staff the language and tools to better contemplate, vision, build, and procure technology solutions that are impactful or transformative for society.
Here, Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler’s character on Parks & Rec) is a stand-in for the countless, optimistic public servants I’ve encountered working tirelessly within the current bounds of regulation, organization, staffing, and procedure. They often have months or years of their work tossed out by politics, court cases, or shifting public opinion, yet continue plodding along.
These public servants may see little applicability for the grand technologies or be dismayed by tech’s past failures to solve their day-to-day challenges. But, by sharpening the focus on what technology should achieve and how it aligns with agency goals, they can find new ways to harness innovation while preserving the missions and values that guide their work.
Bridging the Chasm
I've spent my career building the pieces to span these seemingly incompatible universes. I've deliberately avoided being pigeonholed, wearing a kaleidoscope of professional hats: urban planner, govtech startup founder, cleantech instructor, entrepreneur-in-residence, future mobility evangelist, zoning strategist, information architect, urbantech fellow, civictech liaison, land use researcher, public space advocate. Each role has equipped me with additional insights, tools, and perspectives that might help bridge these domains.
Throughout these varied experiences, I've developed deep insights into the complex dance between technology and governance. I've thought extensively about the strategies governments could use to better leverage the enthusiasm of public-benefitting tech companies and civically-minded talent. I've examined how governments misunderstand startups and overlook technological opportunities within their existing infrastructure, and how opportunistic actors exploit these systemic misunderstandings.
One critical perspective I acknowledge is my outsider status. I've never worked directly within government, never personally embodied the position of being ultimately responsible to a specific community's needs and institutional demands. But it's precisely this outsider view—combined with extensive work alongside government agencies—that allows me to envision actionable solutions that resonate with both sides, building bridges rather than walls.
Urbantech as a Piece of the Solution
My most recent role as an Urban Technology Fellow at Cornell Tech clarified “urbantech” as a critical lens for understanding the tech-government disconnect. While the tech vertical has fallen out of favor—weighed down by being overly broad—it remains a vital framework for bridging seemingly incompatible worlds.
To understand the potential of urbantech, it’s helpful to break it into three interconnected parts:
Governance Emerging from Urbanization - From Bronze Age tax collection systems to industrial era sanitation, formal administrative structures arose directly from the complex challenges of people living together in dense environments.
Urbanism's Profound Benefits - Living in close proximity offers self-reinforcing advantages, improving: resource allocation and infrastructure utilization, economic dynamism through knowledge spillover, social connectivity and cultural exchange, and collective resilience. For me, the most compelling aspect of urbanism is its potential as a form of climate action.
Urbantech's Scaling Potential - (Urban)Tech's promise is to increase and accelerate the comforts within and the desirability of urbanism, ultimately enabling people to flourish and share innovations across cities.
Most current tech vs. government discussions center on the federal level, but the urbantech experience demonstrates that this chasm exists not just in Washington, but in state capitals and city halls across the country. Encouragingly, it also demonstrates both the enormous opportunities and the significant value in bridging the divide.
Urbantech then is the third thread of the newsletter—complementing “Letters to Elon” and “Memos to Leslie”—offering a basis of discussion for using technology to transform how governments operate. The goal isn't merely incremental improvement or one-off tech adoptions to make agencies “smart,” but a series of step-changes towards fundamentally redesigning and reimagining how residents engage with government, access services, and collectively address urban challenges.
Writing to Learn
This newsletter is a continuation of the work I’ve pursued for over a decade, ever since training as an urban planner. It’s an experiment, a dialogue, and an ongoing process of discovery. Inspired by William Zinsser’s Writing to Learn, this act of writing is about refining cross-sectoral lessons, teasing out hunches, communicating mental models, and uncovering the unrecognized threads woven through my experiences.
This isn’t polished research. It’s a space to explore the messy, fascinating intersection of technology, governance, and urbanism—highlighting the areas that sit outside each field’s entrenched narratives. Here, you might find wild, provocative imagery, long-held gripes, or grounded reflections drawn from my decade navigating the tech-government divide. Most importantly, I want to hear your reactions. My ultimate aim is to seed ideas and foster meaningful conversations.
I’m acutely aware of the crowded landscape of online writing, but this moment feels especially deterministic. Can governments maintain their relevancy in the face of accelerating technological developments, which influence increasingly large shares of our day-to-day experience? There’s still space to think, rethink, and envision how people and governments engage, access and provide services, and collectively tackle the challenges of our shared future.
Beginnings are hard… especially at the outset. I’m setting a conservative goal of publishing every two weeks, with the flexibility to write more if inspiration strikes. This rhythm is about maintaining momentum in the face of perfectionism-tinged spirals of wondering whether the effort is worth it, whether I’m doing enough, or whether this is the best I can do. After all, isn’t that what both public service and technological innovation are about? Trying, stumbling, and finding meaning in the process.