VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [74] The City provided information relating specifically to its housing budget, but did not provide information relating to its budget situation in general. We do not know exactly what the City‘s overall financial position is. This Court‘s determination of the reasonableness of measures within available resources cannot be restricted by budgetary and other decisions that may well have resulted from a mistaken understanding of constitutional or statutory obligations. In other words, it is not good enough for the City to state that it has not budgeted for something, if it should indeed have planned and budgeted for it in the fulfilment of its obligations. [75] Furthermore, this being an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal, the question is whether this Court has been persuaded that the findings of the Supreme Court of Appeal are wrong, factually or in law, and should be set aside. I cannot answer yes. The Supreme Court of Appeal‘s finding that the City has not shown that it is incapable of meeting the needs of the Occupiers has to stand. Constitutional validity of the differentiation in the City’s policy on emergency housing [76] It is now necessary to determine the constitutional validity of the differentiation in the City‘s housing policy. That policy distinguishes between those relocated by the City itself and those evicted by private landowners. I deal with this differentiation because the City relied on that policy to support its position that it is not obliged to The letter was supposed to respond to a specific question. The response maintained the position that the City took in its submissions, namely that it is unable to provide accommodation. 35