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 pub

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.