It is cold outside.

Overnight lows in have been dipping into the mid-30s, just a degree or two above freezing.

Yet, there are homeless that turn down the option of a heated dorm and a bed with blankets.

Most people might think a reasonable person would jump at the option of a warm bed when it’s dark and 33 degrees outside with rain on the way.

There are a good number of homeless that believe an offer of shelter against the cold isn’t worth the conditions that often come with it.

No drugs.

No alcohol.

General rules of behavior that must be followed.

As it stands now, Manteca Police — as well as their counterparts throughout the country — can keep applying pressure on the homeless not to engage in illegal camping.

Most jurisdictions that do so have local options where the homeless could seek shelter.

And all of those options typically have conditions even shelters that operate in a 100 percent drop in basis.

Five homeless individuals in Grants Pass, an Oregon city of 40,000 residents, have just filed a lawsuit against the municipality.

This comes after Grants Pass prevailed after it went all the way to the United States Supreme Court in a previous lawsuit filed against the city as well by the homeless.

The court ruled cities can enforce bans on sleeping outside even when there aren’t enough shelter beds within the jurisdiction to accommodate the homeless.

The new lawsuit draws upon an Oregon state law requiring cities’ regulations addressing camping to be “objectively reasonable.”

Of course, the state law conveniently fails to define what is meant specifically by “objectively reasonable.”

The group known as Disability Rights Oregon in filing their lawsuit on behalf of the five homeless, leans heavily on Grants Pass’ policy where the city provides campsites from only 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. daily as not being “objectively reasonable.”

It does so by saying it is not reasonable to require the homeless to pack up and move every morning at 5 a.m. 

The organization, given it advocates for those with disabilities, tosses the disability state of the homeless into their argument.

It includes those needing wheelchairs and canes, those who have lost a limb, those dealing with the aftermath of a stroke, and those dealing with mental conditions.

Note that last year’s Supreme Court decision didn’t delve into the physical or mental condition of those who were camping in spots that broke a local law.

At the same time, the new lawsuit doesn’t argue excluding homeless from its goal of having the city’s action of clearing out its set aside campsite every morning should be based on being 100 percent physically or mentally.

It is basically against the city’s approach to operating the campsite, period.

This is important to note as it cuts to the heart of the issue.

Homeless advocates won’t stop until the homeless secure a place to sleep on their own terms.

Those terms also include a shelter.

The odds are it won’t just be shelter per se but shelter on equal footing with those who are sheltered in general in the greater community, which means individual domiciles as opposed to legal areas to sleep/camp overnight or even dorms.

Plus those options must only have rules the homeless agree to as being reasonable.

Tom Stenson, who serves as Disability Rights Oregon’s deputy legal director, was quoted by Associated Press.

Stenson stated, “I don’t think that the bad decision Supreme Court is the end of his homeless advocacy. I think we’re going to see it continue because the problem isn’t going away. The need for housing is not going away.”

One can’t debate Stenson’s observation except as to whether the court’s decision was “bad” not to hold communities hostage as if they were the proverbial sacred cow.

Grants Pass offers two options to the homeless who don’t want to be legally rousted by police from areas the city has declared off limits to sleep or camp.

One is a non-profit Gospel Rescue Mission. The overnight shelter requires attending religious services, bars pets, and bans alcohol, drinking, and smoking.

The other is an area fenced off by chain link fencing by the city that has toilets, hand wash stations, garbage service and less rules. They can’t access it until 7 p.m. and must clear out by 5 a.m.

Why, one might ask, should the new lawsuit concern Manteca?

After all, Manteca is going the navigation center route with a permanent facility.

The current emergency shelter isn’t exactly a 100 percent low barrier shelter, meaning there are rules.

It’s comparing apples and oranges, right?

Wrong.

The end game is the ability for the homeless to camp wherever they want until homeless advocates secure universal shelter for every homeless at the level they deem satisfactory.

They are not willing to bend to behavioral rules that they deem unreasonable in exchange for shelter.

As such, it is logical to conclude that neither will they agree to rules they deem unreasonable in exchange for the shelter they demand. 

The mantra of homeless advocates is shelter is a human right.

It’s a right they want without being subjected to the give and take nature that civilization needs to work and flourish.

No right is absolute.

Approaching shelter as a right still subjects the homeless to the framework of the American civilization that operates on the premise we are all into this together instead of being 340 million separate islands that never interact.

The homeless have options where they can sleep and avoid being forced to clear out every night in Grants Pass.

Granted, they may not wish to follow the rules.

That’s their choice.

The rest of the community, however, is not obligated to be held hostage by their choice as the Supreme Court’s “bad decision” essentially ruled.

It is a horrible situation all the way around.

But elevating the rights of the homeless to the point they get to dictate the solution will do nothing to reduce homelessness.

That is the lesson of the last six years in the aftermath of the 2019 Martin v. Boise decision that placed strait jackets on communities.

It is the direct result of the 900-pound gorilla that homeless advocates want to ignore.

Too many among the homeless simply want to — for whatever reason — follow their own rules.

The latest lawsuit in Grants Pass has the capability of derailing measured, middle-of-the-road approaches cities like Manteca are taking.