after having read the article, I was asking myself how I would feel if the same situation existed at the park where I go with my dog pretty much every day. Here, I see a few smaller groups who are clearly under the direction of a trainer, doing yoga, stroller strides or other form of group fitness. There are a few here and there, almost nobody during the week, and those few I enjoy watching. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), our park does not have a commanding view onto anything except a few tress, no vista, panorama, or spectacular sunrises or sunsets.
The scenario in the article is a lot different. I can see the need by the city to mandate that trainers have insurance, business licences, CPR etc. I also understand the extra cost if indeed the parks are damaged through the above normal use.
As is often the case, one trainer tries to outdo the others, things get out of hand, and the few culprits mess up the fun for everybody. And I see the need for balance for those who want to enjoy the venue quietly by themselves. After all, everybody pays city fees and taxes for parks, and they should be for everybody’s enjoyment.
I am glad that I am not the one who is in charge of making a decision. I don’t think there will be one that people would consider win-win.
Great debate, though, Susan.