> 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.