I agree that this is a bit of nastiness by Hilton, in the very least by not giving them any adequate warning of the intent not to renew. Hopefully they'll be able to relocate successfully if Hilton remains unmoved.
I wonder if there's another culprit to be considered here: Sarbanes-Oxley.
SOX is all about mitigating *any and all* risk factors. It could very well be that this has been a recurring problem for Hilton (likely at other sites too) in their SOX audits, and they're being forced to reduce certain risks that come from whatever tenants they have hither and yon around the world. This one, with the extra attraction for various disabled persons, would sort close to the top of these kinds of lists.
Just a thought. SOX is evil, and easily evil enough to be responsible for this kind of decision-making. Especially since the excuse remains something written by an attorney and not a business manager.
SOX
Good dig into the dirt behind the dirt. For one thing, SOX has forced companies to really bulk up their accounting departments, putting a further pinch on profits for activities that, at the end of the day, benefit nobody so much as they benefit those added staff. Yeah, it's great for creating "no value added" jobs, but America was better off without the added load; Enron and WorldCom notwithstanding.