"The hotel does not make profits from the restaurant, which leases the space. It is strictly the landlord."
That's true. Perhaps the cost of the required upgrades would make leasing that space unprofitable at this time. I can imagine that bringing the space into ADA compliance could be very costly.
I'm just not certain that this is some sinister plan on the Hilton Corp's part to disrespect injured troops. I can't see how that would benefit Hilton in any way at all.
I suspect there was a third option not mentioned by this author, a business decision revolving simply around money (as most do). Why would Hilton go month-to-month leasing for 4-5 months and then suddenly just boot the tenant? My guess is that it took that long to conclude negotiations with a "preferred" new tenant. And Hilton can do what it wants with its properties. But to not anticipate and expect this backlash, sheesh! Instead of being proactive, Hilton is being reactive. And they deserve whatever grief they're getting, IMHO.
I'm still boycotting Target for booting the Salvation Army. But at least Target handled it well. They notified the SA in January, after one bell-ringing season but in plenty of time to plan for the next. And they also donated a significant sum to the organization to help make up (in their eyes, anyways) for the lost income.
I thought ADA was pretty much all-encompassing. Countless small businesses were forced to either comply or get out of business. What exempts the hotel from complying, regardless of the Heroes coming there?