I don't think we can really split citizen's interests from city's. After all, obligations will be paid out of taxes and local budget, but citizens are clamoring for normal internet instead of what they get from current franchises.
It's perfectly normal for city to be concerned. It's also perfectly normal for Google to simply bypass them and go with the next eager participant. Once the list of eager places is empty, they might come back and revisit "reluctant" participants.
It's like adopting a cat. If you want a cat but local shelter waves a twenty page form to fill out and wants to do a background check on you, you probably will be very likely to get a cat from some other place, where requirements are not so strict
Oh and I still hate current form of franchise agreements. I understand the theory of equality, but practice means "if our low population / low income areas can't get service _nobody_ should have it", which is a bit... frustrating. It cuts out any chance of having alternative to those well established ISPs that dream about per-byte billing and do everything they can to prevent competition.--
Hyperom: Rants about life, politics, technology