I wish that article wasn't quite so one-sided. It mentions that 2/3 of 250m of its budget goes towards subsidising or outright housing people, but how many? I.e. if that money went away, how many more homeless would there be?

I would imagine that would be a better argument than countering with a different number, since it would actually speak to the effectiveness of their budget. Or, show the budget to be not very effective, though I doubt that to be the case.