Those with nothing have plenty to gain, but they should have more to gain. If private companies are profiting off of the backs of the public (both the "haves" and "have-nots"), why shouldn't/doesn't/didn't the city negotiate a profit sharing agreement so that money can go into programs that (among other things) can help the homeless more directly? Shelters to get people off the street, job training programs, libraries, resume workshops. As the article indicates, the city has a ton of leverage that it left on the table, in terms of lost opportunities for increased privacy and increased financial opportunity.

If we go "hierarchy of needs" on this situation, music for a homeless person seems like it should come a little bit behind shelter and food.