Tech in NYC, as an industry is cautiously and (maybe) reluctantly emerging.
It is hesitant, thrifty and somewhat unprepared.
The real estate industry has a 400 year head start, manufacturing 150+ as does many other industries. Tech can catch up quickly, but to do so requires a certain tactical proficiency.
I think it is unrealistic, and might result in an MVO (minimum viable outcome) if the expectation is that the city has the bandwidth to re-purpose its resources to effect the meaningful changes desired from within the tech/vc community.
Instead, likely you will get ad hoc headlines without a cohesive and holistic philosophy.
To really gain traction, Tech as an industry, urgently needs to understand how to operate by gaining trust, creating advocacy from outside itself, writing the checks and investing, quite literally, in articulating a concise ‘road map’.
So far, what I have seen is lacking the imperatives:
1. Operational/Tactical: What resources (ex. Staffing) are required and what scare city resources can be reallocated. What are the roles of the people, what is their budget, what are the measurable goals, what is the time frame, what savings or cost can be reliably forecasted, what is the foreseeable disruption, how can it be mitigated – for starters
2. Org chart: What are the defined roles and responsibilities. Rachel Haot was an emissary to the tech community with little budget/staff
3. Economic outcome: what type of information is nec. to create a model so that alternatives can be properly examined?
4. Funding: City has little money, innovations will require well funded partnerships between NYC government and the tech industry, what funders do you anticipate can be introduced that will collaborate?
I add these contemplations:
‘Lean’ does not easily repurpase itself to a larger, complex, dynamic system, like NYC.
Tech talks 20,000 ft view, politicians have to be in the weeds, it is the in-elasticity of a city.
Patience, there will be some generational (and attrition) shifts. ‘What can be done now?’ 
The Power Broker: I don’t agree with much of what Robert Moses did (and I resent the various opaque Authorities that he appropriated/introduced as a mechanism) but he undeniably ‘did’ something. Robert Caro does an incredible job of giving Moses strategy a narrative. In short, this cliff note:
Moses understood politicians need quick visible successes, they need someone/an agency to do the grunt work of connecting (sometimes competing) interests and the laborious effort required to ‘get things done’: zoning, permits, architectural plans, funding, etc., He came, fully prepared, to each mayor/governor and president with everything drawn up, ready to go, all they had to do was sign on the dotted line. He was remarkably effective.
He also understood that politicians need to manage two principal risks:
1. clusterfuck risk (see heathcare.gov)
2. (bad) headline risk (see healthcare.gov) 
My suggestion is a small disciplined committee that can create reasonable, precise and actionable policy and then cascade it to its larger membership.