The data in the article you linked shows that there has been a continued increase in the amount of human waste, used needles, and encampments. Even the primary

The data in the article you linked shows that there has been a continued increase in the amount of human waste, used needles, and encampments. Even the primary positive figure they cite, a drop in population of 8,640 in 2004 to 7,499 in 2017, is not a substantial improvement. Given the impression that many residents have that things have gotten worse, some of it may be accounted for by factors mentioned in the article (i.e. the perception of increase by people who are simply in areas that the homeless have been displaced to), but I'm also inclined to believe that housing the chronically homeless to reduce the official population count might not actually have too much of an impact. For example, what if the entirety of those 7,500 were given a permanent residence, so that the homeless population drops to 0? I'm not so sure it would be easy to distinguish between the severely mentally ill or drug addicted individual who was technically homeless vs technically not. I suspect that much of the day to day activity would remain unchanged.