This "news" is not news. Many, many parks and so on have required permits and a minimum amount of insurance for professional photographers to make use of the space. And have done so for years.
Professional photographers, including movie crews, can be a great big pain in the neck. A lot of film and TV shows have been shot in Southern California and they love to hog the streets, clog the traffic and try to tell people they cannot go on their own property or park in front of their own house.
LAPD cops in uniform complete with badge and gun will hassle citizens and you will find out that the cops are, in fact, moonlighting for the film or TV producers. They act like God decreed that their film be made -- like it is a sacred undertaking.
Still photogs and video shooters without permits will use pubic and national parks to shoot porn and if your kiddies are there -- tough.
Professional photographers act professionally -- they get the proper permits and insurance.
Of course this can present a minor hassle or a non-professional photog who just wants to take some photos with a "professional-looking" camera, whatever that is.
Thomas Jefferson said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. When is the last time you went down to city hall and told them how you feel? Do you belong to a photogs' organization that lobbies and hollers for what they want? Preaching to the choir won't cut it.
Oh, snapguy.... how long I could rant on that topic. I HATE that and my commute is lengthened about 30 minutes quite frequently because those activities clos a major thoroughfare and cause huge volumes of traffic to share a much smaller intersection. What's worse... more than half the time they aren't shooting... just occupying. But the city makes lots of much needed money from the movie business and this is part of it. So it a 'grin and bear it' situation. I have more problem with the moonlighting cops who misuse city resources and authority to support these activities. And when they are complete jerks... I have even more of a problem because there is literally nothing we can do about it but grumble.
I note it says professional photographers would be required to purchase permits if they wanted to shoot in any of the city’s public parks. Who is to say they are professional? Surely this law would be unenforceable?
Around here, it's about wedding photographers in the park. In part, limiting the numbers, so there are no conflicts amongst bridal parties or overwhelming public use. As to taxplayers use, professional photographers making money off public property usually does involve a fee.
"There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).
I know at least one public building where you have to pay if you use it as background for portrait work.
I don't know whether one differs between commercial and non commercial work. But some commercial photographers use it regularly and by this most likely will identify themselves.