Laserfiche WebLink
H <br />Under the basic logic of the opinion below, the <br />availability of an outdoor camping area like the San <br />Clemente lot should allow a jurisdiction to enforce its <br />public sleeping ordinances. After all, the underlying <br />question is whether the homeless person had no choice <br />but to sleep in an area where sleeping is prohibited. <br />Pet.App. 62a-63a. The San Clemente lot gives <br />homeless individuals a choice by providing them with <br />an alternative place to sleep. <br />However, homeless plaintiffs have invoked stray <br />language in the opinion which suggests that only <br />indoor shelter is acceptable. Pet.App. 62a (suggesting <br />that the question is whether one has the "option of <br />sleeping indoors"). If that is the rule, then no <br />jurisdiction could enforce its public sleeping <br />ordinances unless it erected and maintained sufficient <br />indoor shelter space to house its entire homeless <br />population —a prohibitively expensive proposition. <br />See Pet.App. 17a-18a (M. Smith, J., dissenting from <br />denial of rehearing en bane). <br />Even assuming an outdoor lot is acceptable, the <br />next question is what accommodations must be offered <br />at that site (or for that matter at any other kind of <br />shelter). For example, San Clemente has already had <br />to contend with claims that conditions at its outdoor <br />lot violate both the Fourteenth Amendment and the <br />Americans with Disabilities Act, among other laws. <br />Plaintiffs have asserted, among other things, that <br />the lot violates the law because (1) it has overflowing <br />trash receptacles; (2) there is no shade; (3) one must <br />climb a hill to get to the site; (4) at the entrance to the <br />camp, "the land dips several inches and there is a <br />divot"; (5) the portable toilets are not serviced often <br />