I agree with you. Does it help if the question is reframed?
This city has some severe problems. It also has an unusual concentration of very smart people and big computing power. Why can't we work towards solving these problems using science and evidence and smart people and big computers?
Are you claiming that smart people aren't already working on solving these problems? Or that they're using something other than "science and evidence and smart people and big computers"?
Do you not think you might be an asshole for implying that, because these problems aren't already solved, no one is working on them? Or that anyone working on them isn't smart?
Maybe these problems are HARD! [They, in fact, are. Witness all of human history.]
You're assuming that research is fungible. That, say, if someone is really good at developing novel, efficient data structures, they'll be just as good at finding ways to help homeless people. Why do you think that's the case? Nothing in the real world suggests it works like that.
This city has some severe problems. It also has an unusual concentration of very smart people and big computing power. Why can't we work towards solving these problems using science and evidence and smart people and big computers?