CORRESPONDENCE - CS -1A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Nor is it clear at what time availability should be measured. If the answer is "at the moment of enforcement," then a homeless person could immunize himself from public camping ordinances simply by violating shelter rules and getting evicted (with the result that the shelter would no longer be "available" to him). That cannot be right. But nor can any other answer be reasonably drawn from the decision below. II. There are also difficult questions concerning how to measure whether shelter is available. The decision below arguably allows enforcement of public sleeping ordinances only if the number of available shelter beds exceeds the number of homeless persons in the jurisdiction. But calculating the number of homeless individuals is prohibitively difficult. Nor is it straightforward to monitor the number of available shelter beds, especially given that some shelters are privately run, and not all shelter beds are available to all homeless individuals. In the end, many local governments may simply cease to enforce their public sleeping and camping ordinances rather than attempt to comply with the onerous requirements imposed by the decision below — indeed, some cities have already done so. III. Finally, it is unclear what other laws are cast into doubt by the decision below. The opinion's logic is sweeping. It is possible that, beyond sleeping and camping ordinances, the decision prohibits cities from enforcing laws that prohibit sleeping in designated areas or at certain times; laws that prohibit obstructing traffic; laws that prohibit lighting fires or building of structures on public land; and even laws against public urination, defecation, and drug use.