Re: I understand
According to the NYT article the problems arise around the infrastructure that require constructing:
"Mr. Ellison’s Event Authority last year also backed out of an original plan to spend more than $100 million to build boathouses and repair piers that the city and a succession of private businesses had failed to develop in the past two decades. In return, the Event Authority would have gained long-term rent credits and development rights to the refurbished waterfront. Instead, the city itself is now paying for about $22 million in waterfront upgrades."
Relate that back to Comic-Con. It would like the organisers demanding that the city build a new convention centre (or whatever) because they have to have a giant place for their convention.
In fact it would be like the organisers saying we'll help build that new place, if we get to rent it cheap, and then later just going "Naah j/k. You pay for it"
Clean up after events are what cities should expect when granting licenses to hold such events. And on that note - the city of SF should've bargained a better deal, or should've had some way to back out, if the circumstances changed too much - such as say 4 teams participating instead of the predicted 15.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
