CORRESPONDENCE - CS -1A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

16 number of shelter beds and the number of homeless individuals. One option would be simply to aim for the number of beds to exceed the homeless population by at least one. But, as Judge Smith noted, it would be easy to miscalculate by failing to account for one or more homeless individuals. That innocent error would create an Eighth Amendment violation, "potentially leading to lawsuits for significant monetary damages and other relief." Pet.App. 17a (M. Smith, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). The only safe alternative, then, would be to maintain shelter capacity significantly exceeding the homeless population. That would make compliance with the Ninth Circuit's rule even more extravagantly expensive. And the expense would not be justified by any coherent policy rationale. In effect, it would result in maintenance of a significant stock of shelter beds that will never be used. Indeed, even maintaining a number of beds equal to the number of homeless persons would guarantee that some beds would go unused, as some portion of the homeless population simply does not wish to reside in a shelter.11 In the end, it is far from clear what it would take to comply with the Ninth Circuit's rule. What is clear is that —as long as the decision below remains in force — local governments will not be able to enforce their ordinances without great risk and expense. As a result, Il Perhaps in tacit recognition of this point, the court in one recent case approved a settlement requiring the defendants to have beds "for at least 60 percent of the unsheltered individuals" in the relevant area. Notice of Settlement at 5, Orange Cty. Catholic Worker et al. v. Orange Cty. et al., No. 8:18-cv-00155, Dkt. 272 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2018). Of course, that figure is entirely arbitrary.