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.
Some photographers feel they are entitled. Its unfortunate that regulations like these have to be put in place to control them and protect the rights of others but since you can't punch the inconsiderate ones it seems a necessary evil.