CORRESPONDENCE - CS -1A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on California's scheme of governance. Cf. Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 437 (2002) ("Whether and how to use th[e] discretion [to delegate governmental powers to local government units] is a question central to state self-government.")3 The Ninth Circuit's rule also raises an additional puzzle. Suppose that, in an attempt to comply with the decision below, a city purchased a building in a neighboring city in order to operate it as a shelter. Are those beds "available" to homeless individuals in the city that owns and operates the shelter, or would that city violate the Eighth Amendment by enforcing its anti -camping ordinance in reliance on that shelter? Would the answer change if the city offered to provide free transportation to the shelter? How convenient would that transportation have to be? The decision below provides no answers —and no certainty. Furthermore, some homeless individuals may assert that they have a legal or practical obligation to remain in a limited geographical area (for example, to receive treatment for addiction). For such individuals, must shelter be "available" within that limited area? Again, the opinion below is silent. 3 The confusion as to the relevant jurisdictional level is reflected in a settlement that Orange County entered in order to resolve claims resembling those addressed by the decision below. Notice of Filing Settlement of Class Action, Orange Cty. Catholic Worker o. Orange Cty., et al., No. 8:18-cv-00155, Dkt. 318 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2019). Orange County agreed that, in attempting to place homeless individuals in shelters, it would not transport those individuals across "Service Planning Areas." Id. at 10. These "Service Planning Areas" are arbitrary units with no preexisting jurisdictional significance or relevance under state law or otherwise. See id. at 9.