The home of Silicon Valley is shockingly traditional when it comes to social policy. Yet, there is no better place on Earth to test the most innovative solutions to systemic problems than San Francisco, a relatively small city of unprecedented wealth and creativity plagued by shameful levels of inequality.

Without breaking confidentiality agreements, I’ve can say that I’ve learned one general lesson over my career of off-the-record meetings between some of the richest people in the country and their counterparts in government. What often appears as Silicon Valley’s stereotypical anti-tax political indifference is actually a frustration with how little they can contribute.

Those in tech are keenly aware that the government has not kept up with how fast the industry is impacting their neighbors, whether through housing prices, wages, or education. Incremental policy ideas will not stop the increasingly vicious blame that gets hurled at Silicon Valley.

The city of San Francisco has been requiring too little of the tech industry, not too much.

So what’s the big idea?

Below is a step-by-step plan to galvanize the resources of the tech community and pilot policies that could serve as a model for the world.

In order to formally engage the tech industry in developing groundbreaking policies with their neighbors, a law will be placed on the San Francisco ballot this November to overcome the 5 principle culprits of inequality: housing, income, homelessness, employee benefits and education.

Specifically, The Ferenstein Wire will help place a law on the ballot that forces the city to work with advocacy organizations, the tech industry, and experts to come up with policies for:

1. An end to the housing crisis by permitting massively more density and require the maximum amount of affordable units possible
2. A basic minimum income (a direct cash transfer that would guarantee every resident a minimum financial quality of life).
3. Legalized vocational education, by allowing low-income high schoolers to get graduation credit for taking classes designed by tech companies as a path to getting a job in the industry.
4. An end to homelessness through housing, job training, and healthcare support.
5. Portable employee benefits for self-employed workers, which guarantees a social safety net untethered to an employer.

The ballot will require that by May of 2017, the city will submit a report and set of laws that can make these solutions a reality. Should elected officials refuse to vote on some version of them, the recommended policies will be ready to be directly passed through the ballot.

Why these laws?

These are areas where the city can make dramatic improvements without state or federal involvement.

By one economist’s estimates, rising rent is entirely to blame for growing income inequality. The city economist told me that if it weren’t for skyrocketing housing prices, many San Franciscans would have enjoyed a relatively envious rise in wealth during the recession, thanks to tech-led wage growth.

But, housing is insufficient. Automation is a national problem that could crush San Francisco first and it’s important we find a solution before it hurts our neighbors. No one should live in poverty, given so much wealth.

Finally, equal opportunity still evades many low-income children who don’t have the connections to get in the private high school-> Stanford-> Google pipeline. Yet, nearly every tech CEO I speak with knows they can help design a vocational education system that would give underprivileged students a better shot at getting a job at their company than the current antiquated education system.

In other words, this task force will be responsible for finding groundbreaking solutions to the entire spectrum of inequality.

Why scenario building through direct democracy?

Three reasons:

Many city officials are interested in crafting bold laws, but it isn’t clear whether a majority of citizens will actually turn out to vote in support of them. This ballot serves as a signal that the citizens of San Francisco will (actually) vote for change.

Second, I’ve dedicated most of my career to chronicling the political interests of Silicon Valley. There’s a lot of good ideas and willingness to donate vast resources to a just cause. But, tech culture is more open and participatory than the traditional legislative process, so most tech folks never bother getting involved.

Finally, direct democracy can be a remarkable tool. However, in California, the ballot has often been a weapon of insurgent political groups to cram clunky laws with unrealistic promises and detrimental long-term impacts to the state.

In contrast, Switzerland, a country 10 times the size of San Francisco, is model for how direct democracy can work. The Swiss vote on nearly every single major law directly (dozens a year) and are widely recognized for their stable political system and economic health.

What do they Swiss do? Ballot propositions are cooperative, where legislators work with experts and community stakeholders to craft the most intelligent policy before submitting it to voters.

This law formalizes the world’s best practices in direct democracy.

Of course, I’m open to any ideas, and should better ones present themselves through this process, the laws and approach may change.

How will the laws be promoted?

More details on that soon. Suffice to say that I am allergic to money in politics. I’ve had offers for money and I turned them down. I will try to do this entirely with the help of volunteers and tech companies offering to use their (non-monetary) resources to get the law on the ballot and passed.

For now, we are seeking 100 volunteers to collect 100 signatures to get this law on the ballot. If you are interested in helping, email me at greg at greg ferenstein dot com.

Each tech company and local resident has their own way of helping (for instance, we have tech companies using their software to organize volunteers or blast a message to their email list). I’d much rather residents and tech companies try out a hundred new ideas to get votes and signatures, rather than passively write a big check.

I think it is both a more innovative way to generate ideas for future campaigns and it gets people personally invested in the process.

What’s the Ferenstein Wire’s role?

The Ferenstein Wire is a media outlet. The goal is to generate new ideas. These laws simply help me do my job better, by providing a more coordinated way of discussing the issues I already write about.

How can I engage/what is the timeline?

The strategy has three phases:

1. Collect and debate ideas (Now until April 10th)

For step one, give us your ideas! Below is a link to each issues’ Medium page (link here). You can comment, share, and debate with others on exact bill language. I think this is both a more transparent and resourceful way of crafting law than the traditionally opaque proposition-writing process.

2. Signature gathering (April/May -July)

Several tech companies have already offered to help us guarantee the law gets on the ballot. I’d like to do this without money, so I’m looking for volunteers. Please contact me if you are interested in helping.

3. Promotion (August to November)

All hands on deck. Every interested person will use every means at their disposal to convince the citizens of San Francisco to ratify the proposals.

These laws should win not because its backers have the most money, but because it legitimately helps a majority of citizens and inspires them to vote in record numbers.

The city has yet to tap some of the richest and most brilliant people on Earth to solve the shameful inequality that plagues the tech industry’s backyard. Let’s make the world a better place together.