There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires cities to commit suicide.

So it’s good news that the city of San Clemente is refusing to cave in to the demands of those who think they’re protecting the civil rights of homeless people by suing cities that enforce laws against unauthorized camping or sleeping on streets, sidewalks and other public spaces.

Last week, the San Clemente City Council voted unanimously to relocate a homeless community of approximately 24 people who have been camping for more than a month in a parking lot at North Beach. The “urgency ordinance” orders the encampment moved to a city storage yard, which will be fenced and equipped with lighting, security cameras, trash service and bathroom facilities as well as an onsite security guard at night.

On Wednesday, however, Carol Sobel and Brooke Weitzman, lawyers representing the homeless in the 2018 lawsuit before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, sent a letter threatening to sue San Clemente if the city moves forward with its plan to relocate the North Beach homeless community to the city yard site.

The letter, addressed to City Attorney Scott Smith, says San Clemente is deliberately misreading the recent Martin v. Boise decision and is “attempting to wrap itself in the cloak of authorization.” The letter states the city’s plan is not legal because it is not providing accommodations for people to sleep indoors.

Can that be right?

The appeals court decision that supposedly stops San Clemente from clearing a tent encampment from the beach parking lot is Martin v. Boise. In that case, which was argued in July 2017, decided in September 2018 and amended in April 2019, the justices held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment prohibited a city from enforcing a law against sleeping outside against homeless individuals when no alternative shelter was available.

But there were significant disagreements among the Ninth Circuit judges, who recently considered and ultimately rejected a request to rehear the case. One judge stated that the ruling in the Boise case has already begun wreaking havoc on local governments throughout the states in the Ninth Circuit. Another judge wrote that the court’s reasoning would soon prevent local governments from enforcing other public health and safety laws, such as those prohibiting public defecation and urination. To that, California residents can only answer, “What do you mean ‘soon?’”

San Clemente city officials believe they are fully within the law to relocate the North Beach encampment to a city storage yard, but there is sure to be future litigation over whether the city is obligated to provide beds inside a building instead.

The wider question is whether taxpayers can be forced to pay for housing for anyone who pitches a tent on a public space and declares that he or she has nowhere else to go.

Before the Martin v. Boise case, there was the Jones v. Los Angeles lawsuit. On behalf of homeless individuals, the ACLU’s lawsuit challenged L.A. Municipal Code section 41.18(d), which stated, “No person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or other public way,” unless they were attending a parade. The Ninth Circuit ruled against the city, calling that ordinance, “one of the most restrictive municipal laws regulating public spaces in the United States.”

Los Angeles could have appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the city had a compelling reason for the law, but instead, the city settled with the ACLU. In 2007, officials agreed to stop enforcing the ban on sleeping on the sidewalks anywhere in the city between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. until another 1,250 units of housing for the chronically homeless were constructed, including at least 625 in the downtown Skid Row area.

In return, the ACLU agreed that the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Jones case would not be a binding precedent in future cases.

The city has constructed the required housing, but Mayor Eric Garcetti and the L.A. City Council have refused to go back to court and tell a judge that the city has met its obligations under the settlement and will now enforce its law against sleeping on the sidewalk.

And that’s why, despite approving two tax increases to fund homeless housing and services, L.A. residents see a new EricBnB setting up camp in their neighborhoods every day.

Related Articles Diane Dixon for Assembly District 74

Proposition 22 is vital for workers and California’s economic recovery

EDD woes underscore need for California to focus on the basics

Orange County Register endorsements for the Tuesday, Nov. 3 general election

Constant exemptions are a lousy way to make law Even though the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Jones case was not to be cited as a precedent, the Jones ruling is mentioned repeatedly in the Boise opinion. The judges freely quoted from it and used the same reasoning to arrive at their decision. So Los Angeles gained nothing from the Jones settlement except legally mandated chaos.

The only hope of restoring sanity to our streets is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Los Angeles recently passed up an opportunity to fight another lawsuit related to homeless encampments, Mitchell v. City of Los Angeles. City Attorney Mike Feuer is currently negotiating a settlement in that case, which relates to the city’s authority to clear accumulated trash from sidewalks.

San Clemente will likely be sued over its new ordinance requiring the North Beach encampment to be moved to another outdoor area. If the city stands firm, that case may present an opportunity to fight all the way to the Supreme Court for the power of local governments to enforce basic health and safety laws that protect the life, liberty and property of all residents.

The members of the San Clemente City Council may have it in their power to save every city in the western United States.

Susan Shelley is an editorial writer and columnist for the Southern California News Group. Susan@SusanShelley.com. Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.