Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br />That rule, however, makes little sense. Especially <br />in areas containing many small jurisdictions, it may <br />be completely impractical to ensure that each one has <br />its own sufficient shelter space to house the maximum <br />number of homeless individuals that might be present <br />in that jurisdiction at a given time. California, for <br />example, has over 100 incorporated cities with fewer <br />than 10,000 residents each.2 <br />Moreover, in some states —including California — <br />the primary responsibility for providing indigent care <br />lies with a different level of government than the <br />primary responsibility for enforcing basic public order <br />ordinances. While cities such as San Clemente enact <br />ordinances regarding public sleeping and camping, it <br />is counties that are charged by state law with caring <br />for the indigent. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 17000; <br />Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 892 P.2d 1145, 1165 n.18 <br />(Cal. 1995) ('If the inability of ... homeless persons ... <br />to afford housing accounts for their need to `camp' on <br />public property, their recourse lies not with the city, <br />but with the county" to whom the legislature <br />"allocat[ed] ... responsibility to assist destitute <br />persons."); Clinton v. Cody, No. H044030, 2019 WL <br />2004842, at *8 (Cal. Ct. App. May 7, 2019) ("[C]ounties, <br />not cities, have a statutory obligation regarding <br />housing for the indigent."). <br />Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, then, cities can only <br />enforce their ordinances by taking on the obligations <br />that state law assigns to counties. The decision below <br />thus works a significant and unwarranted intrusion <br />2 See League of California Cities, 2017 City Population <br />Rankings, available at https://www.cacities.org/Resources- <br />Documents/About-Us/Careers/2017-City-Population-Rank. aspx. <br />