I attended the Boring Company's January 22 presentation to the City Council of the City of Culver City (this is legitimately how they refer to themselves), where they pitched their plan to burrow underneath the town as part of their “Phase 1” 6.5 mile tunnel. I went with the intention to simply gather information for my podcast, and left with the sinking feeling that the company is biting off more than it can chew.
The Boring Company presenters themselves were competent, capable, and as well-prepared as I imagine they could have been, considering the circumstances. (I'll get to that in a bit.) My two main takeaways from that City Council meeting were:
1.) There's a vast difference between selling private goods and winning public trust
2.) Any company will struggle to succeed when their CEO (by his own admission) dedicates "2 or 3 percent" of his time to it.
Let's backup, and discuss how the Council meeting went before The Boring Company gave their presentation and fielded questions. It shines a light on how much of public work is a slow grind of competing interests, and a stark contrast to the "move fast and break things" mentality of many technology companies.
A Boy Scout was invited to the front of the room to lead all of us in the Pledge of Allegiance. And after Vice Mayor Thomas Small discussed the upcoming "Kindness Week" at Culver City Middle School, eight residents were each given two minutes to speak on their chosen topic. (I'm not sure how these eight were chosen specifically.) A selection:
One man complained about Film LA’s (the organization that oversees film permits in the Los Angeles area) abuse of Culver City parking. He was quite emotional and infuriated.
Another speaker - a poet - read a couple poems she had written, one comparing Congresspeople to Baboons.
Yet another discussed permitting requests for proposed cannabis retail stores.
An elderly man demanded the city repair and maintain stop lights. It must have struck a nerve because about half the room applauded when he finished.
After the eight speakers had each had their say, Boring Company's Operations Coordinator Jehn Balajadia gave her presentation. She touched on many of the points available at The Boring Company's FAQ.
More importantly, I want to discuss the response from the Council and the public. After Balajadia ended her initial 10 minute presentation, five pre-selected Culver City residents came up to ask their questions.
1.) Marleen Pugach said she didn't want experimental tunnels dug under her neighborhood, which she said is “under seige”
2.) Judi Sherman had questions about community impact
3.) Ken Mand was a champion of the tunnel and its technology but had important questions about its ultimate effect on the city’s residents.
4.) Daniel Lee was excited to see the presentation. But he wanted the city to strongly take into account the proposed access points for entering and exiting the tunnel. Also, he was concerned about the small size of the pods and wished they held more people. He also wanted to encourage local hire, within LA and explicitly Culver City.
5.) Alex Fish said that although Boring Company was not asking for public cash, they were in effect asking for capital via access to public land that could be used for other means. He had concerns that - if the company were to dissolve - who would be left "holding the bag" to guard the tunnel and its access points?
City Councilwoman Meghan Sahli-Wells was the most critical of the five Council Members, and not without reason. Her questions were pointed, and she took issue with comments Musk had made about public transit in December, when he said, “It’s a pain in the ass. That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer."
Sahli-Wells wasn't sure if someone (from her POV) as openly hostile to public projects as Musk was the right person to be leading one.
And - taking off my Musk Fanboy Hat - can you blame her? A self-admitted side project, famous for selling hats and flamethrowers, wants to use land underneath your city. And many of your constituents - the ones you represent - are vocally wary or even hostile to the idea. What would you do? How would you feel?
Sahli-Wells followed up with, “It looks super sexy and super easy, but it’s half baked. It’s half baked from a public perspective.”
And, simply based on how Boring reps handled the presentation and ensuing Q & A, she wasn't wrong. The employees seemed underprepared to face anything resembling hostility. Which brings me back to my original two points:
1.) There's a vast difference between selling private goods and winning public trust
I doubt a Culver City Council meeting had ever been that packed. Nearly every seat was taken and there were two dozen people standing in the back of the room. And there were a LOT of Pro-Musk folks there (myself included). And it was enlightening to see how Musk loyalists would react to certain questions posed by the Council / public, and how "regular" people would react. I think it's a bit akin to watching all of the Harry Potter films AFTER you've already read the books. Your mind invisibly, subconsciously fills in a lot of gaps, to the point where you don't even recognize they exist.
But there's a vast difference between the relationship that exists between a private company and a prospective buyer, and a private company and the larger public. And it all boils down to: Consent. It's the important distinction between consciously buying a U2 album, vs having it automatically installed on your phone. When you walk into a Tesla store, you make the conscious choice to enter. You're already signaling some level of interest to the company by simply walking through the door. That signaling then ratchets up and down based on your actions - are you engaging with an employee in the showroom? Are you asking questions? Or are you turning around and immediately walking out?
You'd be hard pressed to find a Tesla store chockfull of people who don't actively want to be there. If you do somehow encounter this scenario: Call the police, because we've got a hostage situation.
A public / private partnership is an entirely different beast. Instead of members of the public coming to you (The Company) and entering your space, you are pitching / begging / bribing / goading / forcing your way into their space. Suddenly, instead of a scenario in which 100% of the people you're interacting with agree to the interaction, you're fighting tooth and nail to claw your way to 50.1%.
And The Boring Company representatives weren't equipped to do that.
Which brings me to -
2.) Any company will struggle to succeed when their CEO (by his own admission) dedicates "2 or 3 percent" of his time to it.
Elon has publicly said that, after he spends most of his time as the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, 2-3% of his time is spent on The Boring Company. And it showed that night. I’m incredibly sympathetic to the employees who were tasked with presenting the proposal to a not entirely supportive public, but they were in many ways underprepared. And who can blame them? When a boss is running one company intent on disrupting the automobile industry, and another on revolutionizing space travel, how much time every day does he spare the employees giving 100% of their time to his 3% side project?
A CEO fully, 100% invested in Boring Company would have been felt in that presentation. Musk wasn’t.
What's so frustrating about all of this, is that the more I learn and understand about The Boring Company's proposals, the more I examine it from a First Principles perspective, the more excited I get about its mission.
As someone who teared up as the Falcon Heavy Stage 1 boosters landed in-sync on their landing pads, who has been waiting since March 31, 2016 for a Model 3...
I believe the best way for The Boring Company to succeed in its mission to revolutionize public transportation is for Musk to hand over the CEO reins to someone else.
by FUTURESPEAKshow http://ift.tt/2BSzuUM
No comments:
Post a Comment