VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [69] But the City‘s budget was the product of its incorrect understanding of Chapter 12. Had the City prepared a budget on a proper understanding of Chapter 12, it might have made provision for emergency housing. It is thus not strictly necessary to consider the attack on the factual findings of the Supreme Court of Appeal. However, it would be quite inappropriate for a court to order an organ of state to do something that is impossible, the more so in a young constitutional democracy. Hence, the City‘s assertion about a lack of resources deserves consideration. [70] The City‘s Housing Report states that it is urgently relocating people from identified dangerous buildings to temporary accommodation due to the threat to their safety, but that the City does not have alternative accommodation available to temporarily or permanently accommodate those who face homelessness as a result of eviction by private property owners. [71] The Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the City‘s submission that it lacked resources. It observed that the City spoke ―in the vaguest terms‖ about the affordability of meeting demands for housing. It noted that the record showed that the City had been operating in a financial surplus for the past year. Furthermore, the City did not state that it was unable to reallocate funds or to meet the temporary housing needs of the Occupiers. Finally, it observed that the Occupiers sought only temporary housing, whereas the City‘s affidavits mainly set out its inability to meet the Occupiers‘ permanent housing needs. This, coupled with the fact that the City had 33