Think of it another way: the locals overwhelmingly agreed to change the rules because they probably understood that while they could adapt to the rule, outsiders probably would not be as well-informed.
Someone making a right turn after hours paints themselves as a potential outsider who doesn’t know the rules and, given the location’s history, is probably there to solicit sex.
I like that the community was empowered to make this change.
Mistreating outsiders because they are outsiders isn't justifiable just because it is popular. The idea that they are "probably there to solicit sex" is not relevant (nor is it defensible based on available evidence).
The city is empowered to make the change. The court are empowered to overturn it as an unconditional restrictions on our liberty. Specificially the fourth amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things .
Someone making a right turn after hours paints themselves as a potential outsider who doesn’t know the rules and, given the location’s history, is probably there to solicit sex.
I like that the community was empowered to make this change.