Here's a snippet from the NY Times article.
"...that could have forced tourists taking snapshots in Times Square and filmmakers capturing that only-in-New-York street scene to obtain permits and $1 million in liability insurance."

Well.....duh....I'm a native New Yorker (I live about 230 miles northwest of NYC in the Finger Lakes) and this proposal is why even we natives (well the ones upstate anyway) tend to think of NYC as an atmosphere so oxygen-deprived that it affects the brains of those there who are supposed to be in charge. So...in addition to spending $6-8 to get over a bridge and gain entry to "the emerald city" and having to put up with parking fines that seem to start in the triple digit range, now you have to pay a fee to take a picture of your family with Times Square in the background.

What are they smokin?

The city of NY took a lot of flack because the regulation was too inclusive and poorly written, not to exclude tourist and amateur enthusiasts. But such laws are common in many US cities that require professional photogs be licensed and obtain liability insurance or bonds to do shoots on city property. In fact the insurance industry is likely the culprit putting indirect pressure on the city to limits its liability to obtain favorable insurance rates for their own liability coverage.

I have a small question pertaining to these laws. Is this only inclusive to actual professional shoots? Or would this also mean that a professional photographer who took his family on vacation to these cities must also have a permit and whatnot?