Legality aside, is that not kind of the issue here? Lights in a high foot traffic area could incentivize people to speed up to make it before the red, which is less predictable and has cars traveling at faster speeds compared to a stop sign, which requires all cars to stop. Embellished yes, but point of the article showing that this intersection is now more dangerous to pedestrians stands imo.
I'm not sure I've seen evidence that running stop signs is more likely, but even if that is the case which one is higher risk? I'd subjectively say running red lights is more dangerous as you have a higher chance of several pedestrians entering the cross walk all at once, or several cars going at once, since it causes people/cars to move in waves. I think its pretty clear that the author is upset that a stop light that increases risk for pedestrians, cost the school and city money, and provides minimal time advantage for cars was implemented.
Also, I'd like to point out that normal does not mean good, or best.
No, drivers in that neighborhood were used to stop at every stop while now a lot are passing through that intersection much faster to avoid the red light.
Using stop lights to control this sort of high-traffic intersection is totally normal in the US. Stop signs are typically used for lower-traffic intersections. Subjectively speaking, I think drivers are more likely to obey a red light than a stop sign.
Perhaps the author of this article is upset that the neighborhood now has more traffic than it used to, but that's a different issue.