This was clearly an attempt by the L.A. councilperson to restrict Sanders’s ability to speak with voters. The article you cite notes mass confusion and misinformation amongst voters and supporters after the venue change.
Speaking as a person who has actually helped organize and participated in large scale events like this, I can tell you it’s not. There is usually mass confusion and misinformation amongst people attending large scale events. That was the case when I went to the women’s march in LA: The official webpage encouraged people to take public transit and I was at the train station for two hours standing on a platform while filled trains came and went as people got on them to loop around instead of waiting in the crowd I was in. No one at the station could even tell us which side to board or if there would be any more trains at all.
One major thing you seem to not want to acknowledge is that this was typical for the Sanders campaign.
Before Jackie Sheeler leaves her Harlem apartment, she makes sure to put on her Bernie T-shirt and stuff the Bernie…newrepublic.com
Bernie Sanders' loss in Nevada is not merely a "one off" as the campaign is trying to play it off, but likely…www.thepeoplesview.net
This is a positively prescient read today:
If Bernie Sanders is serious about a political transformation in America, he needs a better plan.www.theatlantic.com
There’s clear mention of how the Sanders campaign, especially, was disenfranchised by the primary clusterfuck.
Then quote it. That is what I asked you to do in the first place and instead you cut and pasted half the article. The fact is that Clinton was polling ahead of Sanders the whole time in AZ, implying that cutting polling places hurt her campaign.