Oh, come on. Misusing a homonym like that (which won't be caught by spellcheckers) is not worthy of a snide newspaper article on it. On the ordinance itself, yes, maybe, but the snotty attitude of the writer is not justified just because of a minor error like that.
Even though most major publications go through a number of editing/proofing cycles before printing, stuff still gets through. Typos and homonymal substitutes are slippery little devils.
In summertime, even the American Rifleman has a few boo-boos slip through, presumably because of staff vacations. I've noticed that over many decades.
John 8:7
Romans 2:1
Matthew 7:1
Terry 230:RN