What is the current state of the law in the context of nuisance claims?

[496 P.2d 858] The wisdom of the rule that the responsibility for disorderly conduct occurring on public streets and sidewalks rests in government and not in private hands has not been questioned since early civil nuisance [7 Cal.3d 91] actions. In Pfingst v. Senn (1893) 94 Ky. 556, 23 S.W. 358, the court refused to enjoin the opening of defendant's 'resort and beer garden.' The complaint alleged that previously a similar establishment was operated on the same property and that 'crowds of idle and disorderly spectators were drawn by the music, and their habitual presence in the streets became to the neighbors a source of annoyance and a nuisance.' (23 S.W. at p. 359.) To this contention the court responded: '(T)he idle and disorderly crowd of 'hangers on' may easily and summarily be disposed of on complaint to the municipal authorities.' (23 S.W. at p. 360.)