> The parks weren't just being "used", people were littering, staying after hours, trampling on flowerbeds and stuff. Or did you miss that part of the article?
These are problems that any park that has high traffic has to deal with. The judge offered reasonable solutions that didn't involve dissuading people from using the park.
> But my no means was it in response to "normally sedentary people getting exercise."
From the article: "Requiring Candy Lab to secure insurance, portable restrooms, security, clean-up, and provide a timeline for an 'event'"
That is very directly a response to normally sedentary people getting exercise - the city wants them out of the park.
These are problems that any park that has high traffic has to deal with.
No, they're not problems of "high traffic". That would be things like too many people on the lawn above intended capacity, and what not.
The point is that by any common sense definition, the kinds of activities noted by the authorities constitute "abuse", not "use" (as there is no intended allowance of things like trampling flower beds, etc, at any level of capacity). And hence, in any place where you have actual working municipal governance, you'll find that they're dealt with appropriately.
If you don't see the importance of this distinction -- sorry, but you're very confused.
These are problems that any park that has high traffic has to deal with. The judge offered reasonable solutions that didn't involve dissuading people from using the park.
> But my no means was it in response to "normally sedentary people getting exercise."
From the article: "Requiring Candy Lab to secure insurance, portable restrooms, security, clean-up, and provide a timeline for an 'event'"
That is very directly a response to normally sedentary people getting exercise - the city wants them out of the park.