Hot tip; if police action utterly fails to solve the problem and the homeless/drug dealers are back in days or weeks, then the issue is that the police action is utterly ineffective to such a degree that it becomes clear that either those police are completely incompetent nincompoops who shouldn't be serving as unarmed security for the Teen Choice Awards let alone as a police officer, or their intent was never to put an end to this in the first place, likely because constantly fighting a neverending "disease" is way more remunerative in terms of budget and power than actually curing the problem the first time out. Same reason pharmacorps prefer to sell treatment for symptoms rather than cures, wherever possible.
I don't particularly care if you prefer that they're incompetent or malicious, but that's basically your two choices. Especially with regards to the homeless, because breaking up the camps doesn't magically make them not-homeless. It's just a way for cops to get off on hurting innocents with the least capacity to fight back.
There you go, blaming compassion and empathy as if those are ills to be ignored rather than the baseline of human ethical conduct.The ill effects on public transit are just the side effect of an actually popularly-held position. "Drug users and homeless people hang around the edges of the plaza and have breached locked areas in the station, creating a danger for riders and staff" meets "Well, where do you want them to go?"--compassionate instincts. And the people most empathetic towards train drug use and public area homeless encampments simultaneously stop low-income housing and fail to notice how anti-homelessness spending is spent.
Also, citation frickin' needed that it's people pushing to support social action to help the homeless get off the streets that oppose things like low-income housing rather than NIMBY middle-class and higher conservatives who think they're better than others.