The Addressable City

A competent city should feel a little like a well-run household. The trash goes out on the right day. The street is paved when scheduled. Detours are announced before you leave the driveway. When something breaks, someone tells you what happened, what’s next, and when it will be over. In the private world, this is now the baseline: a notification when your package is on the porch, a ping when your flight gate changes, a text when the pharmacy fills your prescription. Government, by contrast, still tends to communicate as if the only tools on earth are a meeting notice, a press release, and a sign zip-tied to a pole.

We have built the digital infrastructure to speak to people at the level where they live—the address—and at the moment when it matters—the event. Yet public institutions mostly speak in generalities and in arrears. The result is not just inconvenience. It is the quiet erosion of trust. Citizens are rational. If Amazon can tell me my parcel is nine stops away, why can’t City Hall tell me that tomorrow’s snow route includes my block?

The usual answer is sentimental and wrong: government isn’t a business. Of course it isn’t. It is older, more diverse in mission, more bound by procedure. But that is not an argument for broadcasting less; it is an argument for modernizing how we broadcast. If anything, the democratic obligation runs in the other direction. In a marketplace, you can pick a different vendor. In a polity, you get the government you built. The bar for specificity should be higher, not lower.

Modernizing public communication begins with a change in premise. The prevailing model is broadcast: citywide alerts, legal ads, a Facebook post into the bottomless scroll. The modern model is addressable: messages tied to a place, a person, a project, a moment. Broadcast has its place—storms, emergencies, shared rituals. But the daily work of the city is a series of service events: a pickup delayed, a hydrant flushed, a lane closed, a permit issued, a meeting moving from draft to vote. Each of those events has a geography, a calendar, a responsible owner, and a standard. The public does not need a poem about any of it. The public needs a short, specific message that connects those four elements to the people affected.

This is not a call for a new social media initiative. It is a call for a civic nervous system. Think of an addressable communications layer as a utility: event in, rule applied, message out, response measured. When a work order enters the system—“mill and pave, from 600 to 800 Maple, August 12–15”—the rule engine knows who lives or works there, which bus lines cross it, what trash route overlaps it, which businesses have registered deliveries on that block. It sends the right messages, through the channels people actually use, at the cadence the work requires. And it promises a follow-up when the cone field disappears.

The technology for this is not exotic. It is the applied discipline that’s hard. Address-level GIS is standard. Messaging platforms are commodity. What government lacks is the habit of specificity—because specificity commits. If you tell residents “Tuesday by noon,” you have created a standard against which you can be measured. You will miss it sometimes, and you will have to say why. That is uncomfortable. It is also the whole point. A democratic state should bear the discomfort of being precise so that the public does not bear the burden of guessing.

There is a moral economy here, too. Vague systems are navigable by the connected and punishing to everyone else. The resident who knows a department head will get an answer; the resident who does not will get a shrug. Administrative ambiguity is a tax, and it is regressive. Addressable communication—done right—replaces insider knowledge with public knowledge. It lowers the cost of being a citizen.

Skeptics hear this and worry about surveillance, spam, or both. They are not wrong to worry. The answer is not to abandon addressability; it is to bind it with rules. Consent should be plain and revocable. Defaults should respect the least intrusive path, SMS before apps with tracking, email before push, postcards for households that opt out of digital altogether. Data should be minimized to purpose, governed by retention schedules, and ring-fenced from political use. Audit trails should show who sent what, to whom, and under what authority. In other words, modernize communication the way you would modernize any core utility: with clear limits, measured performance, and an institutional memory that survives personnel changes and news cycles.

There will be those who say this sounds like customer service, and government is not a store. They are half right. Government is not selling; it is stewarding. But that difference cuts in favor of higher standards, not lower. A household can endure a package arriving a day late. A city cannot casually mismanage a detour past a school, or a boil-water notice, or the timeline of a zoning vote. Where the private world uses addressable communication to make consumption painless, the public world should use it to make citizenship legible.

Consider a street reconstruction. In the old way, the city posts a legal notice, holds a meeting, and spray-paints some cryptic glyphs on the asphalt. Work begins. Angry calls follow. In the modern way, the city narrates the project to the people it touches. Before design is final, it announces the problem the project is meant to solve and how the proposed options differ. When the contract is awarded, it sends a short digest to the block: dates, hours, parking plan, trash adjustments, a cell number for the site lead. When the timeline slips, it tells the truth on the same channel it used for the original promise. When it is done, it closes the loop with a note that thanks people for the hassle and points to where the money came from and where the next project stands in the queue. None of this requires a poet. It requires a schedule.

Emergency communication proves the rule. The jurisdictions that handle crises best are not the ones with the loudest sirens. They are the ones that speak in specifics into a space that is usually quiet. “Shelter in place from Cedar to Glen, east of the tracks, windows shut, HVAC off, update in 20 minutes.” This works not because the residents are unusually compliant, but because the government has built the habit of being believed. Belief is not naive. It is the recognition, born of repetition, that the same voice that speaks on ordinary Tuesdays will be measured on terrible Fridays. If you want urgent messages to be heard, make the routine ones worth reading.

The politics of modernization are often portrayed as a clash between technocrats and traditionalists. That is a false choice. The case for addressable government is both progressive and conservative. It is progressive in lowering barriers to participation and making the state’s machinery legible to those without time or friends on the inside. It is conservative in its respect for limits and procedure, in its insistence that rules be published and followed, in its preference for steady competence over performative improvisation.

None of this requires a moonshot. It asks, rather, for a change of posture. Publish the operating model so that residents know who does what, by what authority, on what timetable. Tie messages to addresses and events rather than to platforms and moods. Choose the channels people already use. Measure the basics—reach, timeliness, resolution—and report them with the same dour regularity you apply to finance. Accept that sometimes the truth will be awkward and prefer it anyway. You will earn attention the way one earns interest: slowly, then suddenly.

If modernization sounds unromantic, that is a virtue. A mature democracy is not an endless campaign. It is a set of institutions that can keep time and keep promises. The dividend of doing so is visible where you might least expect it: in a quieter inbox; in meetings that end when they should; in fewer fights about surprises and more arguments about choices; in the slightly shocking experience of being treated, in the public square, the way you are treated by the better parts of the private one.

There is a lot we cannot fix with a text message. But the fact that you can know a package is six stops away while knowing nothing about tomorrow’s detour is an indictment, not an inevitability. We can build an addressable city. We can speak to people where they live, about the things they can control, in the windows when it matters. And if we do, the larger promises of self-government—consent, equality, trust—will feel less like slogans and more like the texture of daily life. That is not a gadget. It is a public good.

---

About Andrew Flynn

Andrew is a Mt. Lebanon commissioner, public finance and policy expert, volunteer firefighter, and community advocate committed to building safer, more resilient, and better-connected neighborhoods. Through public service and hands-on experience, Andrew works every day to make a positive impact in our community.

Keep Exploring

Stay informed with the latest updates and news on Andrew’s work and campaign by visiting the News section. Want to learn more about Andrew’s background and values? Head over to Meet Andrew. Ready to make a difference? Find out how you can take action and get involved on the Get Involved page.