Google simply will not build Fiber in places that aren't willing to waive that requirement. Conversely, other broadband providers would serve many places if cities were willing to waive those requirements.
Here in Baltimore, Verizon was ready to build FiOS, and in fact my building and a few others nearby has it because Verizon was able to do it without getting a city-wide franchise. Fiber deployment to the whole city fell through because Verizon wouldn't commit to wiring up the vast low-income areas of the city where people couldn't afford to subscribe anyway.
So because of historical discrimination it's common for government to require providers to serve everyone in a area instead of just the profitable areas (e.g. people that would buy $100 IP+TV packages instead of basic 5Mbps internet).
Chatanooga's system cost 5-8k per subscriber household for fiber and smart grid. It has resulted in little to none of the projected economic growth. And the revenue stream in no way makes up for the capital investment. The market values the NPV of a Comcast customer at only $2,500, and cable customers pay quite a bit more than $70 per month.
This regulation is counterproductive, the result is that no one gets fiber.
Tesla does not discriminate based on your address. They discriminate based on income.
The problem with discrimination based on neighborhoods is that historically, it has not been income-based, despite claims by businesses that their only criteria was income[1].
The type of franchise that requires universal buildout (with a number of caveats) is a cable franchise, with the intention that everyone has access to TV services, not broadband. And the standards for new entrants into a cable franchise are generally less onerous (or provide time to get to universal coverage).