in the city's favor. Classy Cycles appealed. In the Words of the Court WOLF, J. [Judge] * * * * Municipalities have broad authority to regulate activities impacting public health, safety, and welfare so long as such regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, to the extent that appellant argues on appeal that the City was without authority to prohibit the leasing or rental of motor scooters because motor scooters are not a * * * nuisance, appellant's argument is without merit. [Emphasis added.] Our job * * * is not to determine whether the City used the best method or least intrusive means, but whether the actions were reasonably related to accomplishing its goal. Under this analysis, the statute need only bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. Some inequality or imprecision will not render a statute invalid. * * * Courts uphold governmental regulations as long as there appears to be a plausible reason for the governmental action. [Emphasis added.]be a plausible reason for the governmental action. [Emphasis added.] * * * Here, * * * the situation laid out within the [ordinances] unequivocally states that the dangerous conditions [created by the irresponsible driving behavior of scooter renters, especially at night, amplified by the lack of training, supervision, and oversight practiced by the rental scooter businesses] existed throughout the entire city. Under these limited circumstances, we do not find the ordinances to be arbitrary or unreasonable.Classy Cycles, Inc. v. Panama City Beach District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2729, _ So.3d _, 2019 WL 5945495 (2019). Background and Facts Panama City Beach, Florida, enacted two ordinancesthe first to prohibit the overnight rental of motorized scooters and the second to prohibit the rental ofthe scooters in the city effective at a future date. Both ordinances included an extensive rationale for their adoption, stating essentially that a geographically small city has the right to restrict a business from operating within the city when the restriction is for the safety of the city's citizens and Visitors. Classy Cycles, Inc., filed a suit in a Florida state court against Panama City Beach, seeking to have the ordinances declared invalid. Classy Cycles argued that the city did not have the power to ban a business unless the business was a nuisance. Because the rental of scooters to the public was not a nuisance, the city could not completely prohibit it. The city countered that it could prohibit any activity, provided the reasoning supporting the prohibition was not arbitrary nor unreasonable. The court entered a judgment in the city's favor. Classy Cycles appealed. l Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement