In 2019, 25 future events at Moscone Center were canceled. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)

In 2019, 25 future events at Moscone Center were canceled. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)

Moscone Convention Center faces uncertain future, Grand Jury says

Street conditions, safety concerns and steep costs make San Francisco less attractive for events

Even before the pandemic, San Francisco’s Moscone Convention Center faced a potential loss of business due to factors such as “street blight” and steep costs that make The City by the Bay less attractive for conventions, according to a recent Civil Grand Jury report.

But city officials have said that while they agree the convention center is vitally important to The City’s tourism industry, there’s a limit to what they do can to help it in the near future.

Moscone Center generates business for restaurants, hotel rooms and other hospitality services that accounts for roughly 20 percent of San Francisco’s $10 billion travel and tourism sector, according to the report. All told, the industry generates thousands of jobs, patrons for local business and substantial tax revenue.

The Civil Grand Jury, a 19-person panel appointed to probe government operations, spent one year before the pandemic interviewing relevant stakeholders, city agencies and industry experts, conducting site research during live events and analyzing relevant documents to determine whether the recent success of the Moscone Center and the convention business writ large is sustainable.

Its findings, released in an October report, determined the convention industry’s “overall economic impact” in San Francisco — $4.9 billion, nearly $500 million of tax revenue and over 39,000 jobs — was at “at risk” as the appeal of hosting events at Moscone Center declined.

Event sponsors were already opting for cities such as Las Vegas or San Diego. Just in 2019, 35 future events at Moscone were cancelled, with organizers citing San Francisco’s high costs, perceived lack of street cleanliness and potential safety issues as top reasons for their departure, according to the report.

“Visitors often express feeling insecure and perturbed, and this offset’s our city’s advantages , such as strong airport lift and international routes, cultural, entertainment and touristic opportunities and the overall appeal of San Francisco’s convention center,” the report says.

The Grand Jury recommended a number of actions The City should take to mitigate the risk of losing convention business at Moscone, including setting aside an additional $2.5 million in subsidies, assigning additional beat patrol officers to the four-block radius around the center during events and creating a task force to address event security and street cleanliness concerns.

However both the Board of Supervisors and Mayor London Breed’s office have concluded none of those recommendations can be implemented at this time.

Supervisors passed a resolution on Dec. 15 that noted The City’s limitations around committing additional financial or law enforcement resources to Moscone Center because of the “fiscal uncertainty” resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The board resolution also found there was no need to create a separate task force because “The City has already established an active relationship with various city departments and organizations that oversees event security and street management.”

Breed’s office also issued a response on Nov. 30, in which it concluded none of the recommendations would be implemented on the basis that none are “warranted or reasonable.”

The mayor’s office also noted fiscal uncertainty, existing relationships between relevant stakeholders and limited staffing capacity at the police department as reasons the Grand Jury’s suggestions are not feasible.

City officials “partially” disagreed with the Grand Jury’s assessment that high costs, potential security concerns and street cleanliness detract from The City’s overall appeal as a convention site because “conventioneers consider a variety of factors to determine the value of hosting events in The City.”

Bay Area NewsPoliticssan francisco newstourism

Just Posted

A felled tree in Sydney G. Walton Square blocks part of a lane on Front Street following Sunday’s storm on Monday, Oct. 25, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
After the rain: What San Francisco learned from a monster storm

Widespread damage underscored The City’s susceptibility to heavy wind and rain

Plan Bay Area 2050 is an expansive plan guiding the region’s growth and development over the next three decades. The regional plan addresses progressive policy priorities like a universal basic income and a region-wide rent cap, alongside massive new spending on affordable housing and transportation infrastructure. (Shutterstock)
$1.4 trillion ‘blueprint’ would address Bay Area’s housing, transit woes

Analyzing the big ticket proposals in ‘Plan Bay Area 2050’

A felled tree in San Francisco is pictured on Fillmore Street following a major storm that produced high winds and heavy rains on Oct. 24, 2021. (Photo courtesy of Philip Ford)
Storm updates: Rainiest October day in San Francisco history

Rainfall exceeded 10 inches in parts of the Bay Area

On Sunday, California bore the brunt of what meteorologists referred to as a bomb cyclone and an atmospheric river, a convergence of storms that brought more than half a foot of rain to parts of the Bay Area, along with high winds, concerns about flash floods and the potential for heavy snow in the Sierra Nevada. Much of the Bay Area was under a flash flood watch on Sunday, with the National Weather Service warning of the potential for mudslides across the region. (NOAA via The New York Times)
Bomb cyclone, atmospheric river combine to pummel California with rain and wind

What you need to know about this historic weather event

The Department of Building Inspection, at 49 South Van Ness Ave., has been mired in scandal since since its creation by voter referendum under Proposition G in 1994. (Courtesy SF.gov)
The Department of Building Inspection, at 49 South Van Ness Ave., has been mired in scandal since its creation by voter referendum under Proposition G in 1994. (Courtesy SF.gov)
Whistleblowing hasn’t worked at the SF Dept. of Building Inspection

DBI inspectors say their boss kept them off connected builders’ projects

Most Read