The fire and the smoke

The City of Hamilton estimates that, as of May, there are around 1,650 people experiencing homelessness in the city. There are around 350 shelter beds available and 6,110 families on the waitlist for a spot in CityHousing. Only about 15% of people on the waitlist are housed each year and the waitlist itself hasn’t declined in a meaningful way in a decade.

We all know the stats. We know that our housing and healthcare and community support systems are so fundamentally broken that people have no other choice but to sleep in tents in Hamilton’s parks, on medians, and across local greenspaces. We know that people are struggling and people are angry and people are feeling hopeless.

Little of what’s happened since the city sent their draft encampment protocol back to the public for consultation as helped.

So, as we sit here, smothered by smoke (because why not add a little dash of climate catastrophe bitters to the inherited hellscape cocktail that is our present reality), let’s look at some key moments, some key themes, and some key steps we can take to truly address this situation.

And, as with last week, there are some heavy themes here. There’s some violent language and upsetting comments that will be referenced throughout this piece. So, if you’re not feeling any of that, skip down to the bit on trains. Plus, the newsletter will be way shorter if you do that.

The Protocol

The City of Hamilton’s Draft Encampment Protocol (which can be found here) is the latest in the city’s attempts to address homelessness in Hamilton. During the pandemic, the city repealed the By-law Enforcement Protocol and directed enforcement of the city’s bylaw that prohibits camping in parks and on public property. After skirmishes between HPS, by-law, encampment residents, and allies of those encamped broke out, policies were shifted, rearranged, and adapted. Time limits were implemented, requiring notice be served to encampment residents before their being evicted. An Encampment Coordination Team was created. Full time staff members were hired, just to evict people from encampments.

And then we had an election.

The city’s most reactionary councillors were either defeated or retired, allowing a whole new set of voices to come to the table. These voices have worked diligently to reorient our conversations around encampments, and, in February of 2023, pushed for a change to the policies away from punitive displacement toward a “ human-centered, housing first, health-focused, rights-based approach.”1 But there are still those around the table who carry the baggage of 2018-2022 with them, and progress has been slow.

One of the main problems is that we now have a patchwork of laws on the books and few resources to do more than enforce laws. Encampment residents are still at risk of eviction, there are few acceptable social housing units available for people, and the talk of a housing first approach is little more than talk when the provincial and federal governments not only refuse to step up with meaningful investments, but take steps to actively make the problem worse.

The protocol was an attempt to bring some “order” to the city’s approach to encampments. But, as with many attempts to seek the middle ground, it has ended up angering more people than it has satisfied.

The protocol establishes a few key guidelines: distances tents can be from other property and amenities, number of tents in an area, how city staff and social support folks will interact with encampment residents, how to deal with abandoned encampments, and the health regulations around encampment sites.

On top of this, proposals for “sanctioned” encampment sites (which could vary in size, scope, and shape) have further complicated the discussion. Residents have conflated the two, which are related to, but still independent of, one another. A sanctioned site may be for tents or tiny homes, might be in parks or might be on other city property. Might have water and electricity or might be close to places where those can be found. But, even if sanctioned sites are voted down, it is still possible an encampment protocol will be approved.

The protocol was rejected by council in May and sent back to staff for more consultation. Part of that consolation has been in the form of an online survey (found here) and a few meetings. The results of the public consultation will be included in the new report, which will come before council in August.

The Mountain Meeting

On June 19, residents of Hamilton mountain were invited to the first of the city’s open public consultation meetings on the proposed encampment protocol. The meeting was held at Hill Park, just across Sackville Hill Park from the intersection of Upper Wentworth and Mohawk and a stone’s throw from Lime Ridge Mall.

The meeting was, by all accounts, a complete disaster.

As the Spec reports, residents loudly opposed any acknowledgement of the dignity and human rights of anyone living in tents. Handed green and red cards, the residents who attended the meeting wagged them in disapproval when the city’s director of housing, Michelle Baird, outlined the problem and provided context.

When confronted with stories from people who have experienced homelessness, residents still chose to fixate on keeping tents away from residential areas, “family” parks, and children. Comments from people with lived experience, pointing to the unaffordability of the housing market in Hamilton, were countered by incendiary populist bluster from mountain councillors. Ward 6’s Tom Jackson, told the audience that, if council moves forward with sanctioned encampment sites: “Hamilton would become a mecca for people from beyond our border.”2

The meeting was tense and validating for mountain councillors skittish about dealing with anything related to homelessness.

But it was made worse by what happened slightly before the meeting.

Some mountain residents received two letters. I want to stress that it remains unclear if both flyers were sent together or individually. The source of the first letter is likely more official than the second, but both have a very similar look (which was also likely intentional).

The second flyer is a dog whistle. In bold letters, right at the top, it reads “HAMILTON HOMELESS PROBLEM COULD BE COMING TO YOUR PARK”.

It references children, youth soccer, lovestruck picnickers, dirty needles, mental illness, people “living off the land”, public deification, “unacceptable behaviours” (with the American spelling). It claims T.B. McQuesten Park, across the Linc from Lime Ridge Mall, could be a tent city of 50+ tents.

“POSSIBLE ADDICTION AND MENTAL ILLNESS PROBLEMS COMING TO YOUR PARK”.

Your park. You, good mountain resident. You, upstanding taxpayer. You, homeowner with indoor plumbing. You, straight married person with children. You, normal Hamiltonian. You, the person who is too righteous to use drugs. You, voter.

That’s a letter that screams “I don’t want new facts, I want to be ensconced in my own preconceived notions.” And it encourages that from others by playing on deep-seated fears and ugly stereotypes.

No wonder the residents at the mountain meeting were enraged. They were primed for it. Then they were handed green and red cards and asked to use them to express their opinions on human rights.

Even just hearing about that meeting was dispiriting. So, walking into the downtown meeting on Tuesday had me anxious as all hell.

The Downtown Meeting

The downtown meeting was quickly moved from City Hall to the Convention Centre to accommodate for childcare and increased interest from the public.

Before the meeting, the folks from the Hamilton Encampment Support Network (HESN) held a rally to amplify the voices of people with lived experiences and to show that the community opinion on the matter is far more diverse than the mountain meeting would have people believe.

Upon entering the convention centre, I was struck by the sheer number of people in the room. Easily over 1000 people were packed into the lower auditorium of the centre, which had been set up with huge screens, a sound system, and a large stage. I was concerned about the proceedings, as the HESN and others around town had shared a letter, purportedly sent to folks in the network of Walter Furlan, the local activist and second place candidate in 2022’s Ward 3 council race.

Similar to the mountain letter, Walter’s call out references kids, seniors, and businesses being targeted by city officials who “ship” problems to Ward 3. He asked attendees to wear red clothing to signal their disapproval.

I was relieved when very few folks entered wearing head-to-toe red (Canada flags featured prominently in the mix, which, to me, conjured images of the Convoy). Not because they don’t deserve to have their opinions heard (listening is the best way to understand folks, which is how we can initiate a conversation to change those perspectives using facts and experiences they may not have), but because Walter’s crew has been known to make the situation more tense than it needs to be by resting on their prejudices, rather than trying to understand where others are coming from.

The meeting was complicated. The initial presentation tried to lay out the challenge in a comprehensive and understandable way, while also making it clear that the city has few resources to address the problem in a systemic way. And the moderator, brought in by an outside company to be a neutral third party, asked council members to listen and observe, rather than do what was done during the mountain meeting and use the forum as a sort-of campaign rally for council’s reactionary right wing.

The Q&A session was more structured than the one on the mountain. Residents were asked to write questions on cards, which could then be grouped by category. Often, the questions on the cards were read out verbatim as “representative” questions of others in the cluster. The mic was occasionally handed to audience members, many of whom had experiences with homelessness/near homelessness, living in encampments, or living close to parks where encampments are located.

They were, for the most part, very insightful and informative. Some were passionate, some were heartbreaking, some were genuinely necessary.

I have to admit, I started wandering during the Q&A. I listened, but shifted locations, chatted with some friends, and kept moving. Just the way I cope with being boxed up in a stuffy auditorium with hundreds of other folks talking about complicated ideas, I guess.

Overall, I’m not sure how many hearts and minds were moved. And I’m not sure if either “side” of the debate felt like anyone listened. But it was certainly more informative and hopeful than the mountain meeting.

The Roundtable

The Monday before the downtown meeting, I had a chance to participate in a truly amazing discussion activity hosted by HAMSMaRT and Keeping Six. The activity was supported by The SHIFT, a UN-backed group that encourages people to think of housing as a right. The goal was to bring people who have previously experienced homelessness and people who are presently experiencing homelessness together to think about a “people’s protocol” - an encampment protocol built by and for people with lived experiences. I got to participate as an observer, which was a really wonderful opportunity for me to hear from folks who are routinely sidelined in these conversations, despite the conversations being about them.

I will not repeat any direct quotes from folks, as those are their stories to be told in their ways and in their own time. Their experiences have helped inform me and can hopefully inform you, but aren’t for us to use as our own.

There were some general themes raised, but many of the folks who participated shared stories about how it is increasingly difficult to find safe and affordable housing, how the systems around housing are such that they actively exclude people experiencing homelessness, and that government programs designed to help people make ends meet have stagnated and can be taken away with little notice (programs like ODSP don’t cover rent and folks in encampments spoke about benefits relating to housing being rolled back, meaning they get less for not having a home).

Many participants expressed frustration that, because of their situation, they are routinely denied the same experiences in public and semi-public spaces. Private security harasses people experiencing homelessness for engaging in the same behaviours (stopping for a smoke, chatting with friends, simply being in public space) that those who are housed do.

And some participants spoke about things like Tiny Shelters being a way to help prepare people who have not been housed for years refamiliarize themselves with what it is like to be a renter or a resident. This requires wrap-around supports and guidance, but it can help folks get back into the swing of things.

One of the most insightful things that came up was from one of the facilitators, who reminded the group of the Intensive Support Program (ISP). Started during COVID, the ISP worked with two dozen folks experiencing homelessness, provided them with housing in a CityHousing building, and offered them complete wrap-around supports when it came to whatever they needed. The program was resounding success, with all the participants who are still with us remaining housed, safe, and supported.

The Conversation

After the meeting on Tuesday, I wasn’t content to just participate in a big public meeting without hearing more directly with people in my own community who are presently experiencing homelessness. I had met a very friendly participant during the roundtable who informed me they lived quite close to my own home and, on our way back from the downtown meeting, my partner and I waved and said hello to that person and their friends as we passed their encampment.

What followed was an amazing hour-long conversation with some neighbours where we shared stories, joked around, talked about the city’s policies, exchanged numbers, and extended an open invitation to hang out in the future.

Again, this is not the space for me to exchange any personal stories. Indeed, the only reason I’m mentioning this is to preface a very simple statement: say hello to your neighbours, both housed and unhoused. Because they’re your neighbours. They’re people who are part of our community and their perspectives are so, so, so important.

On a recent episode of Canadaland’s Shortcuts podcast, the Reverend Cheri Di Novo (a kickass queer activist and one of the best MPPs Ontario has ever seen, IMO) kept reiterating that we need to talk to our neighbours. That’s how we can pull people back from extremism, engage in that most democratic of exercises - swaying opinions, and hear from folks with different life experiences.

Too often, we hide from the people around us and use the internet as a substitute for real interactions. But the internet, as much as it can bring people together, is much better at driving people apart.

The Reddit Chatter

One of the single worst things during this whole debate has been Reddit. The site is presently having a little meltdown overall because of proposed changes to how automated software uses the site, but there are still close to 100K subscribers and 300+ regular daily users of the r/Hamilton subreddit.

The top post from this month is one entitled: “I’m so done”.3 Posted by a user on June 18, the post indicates that the Redditor has been the victim of repeated break-ins, which they attribute to the growing encampment near their home. The post ends with the quote: “Idk I think my empathy for them is gone at this point”. The whole thread is an orgy of anger and vitriol, directed at encampment residents, the city, Cameron Kroetsch, “bleeding heart liberals” (didn’t know we were bringing that one back…sounds like the right is trying to reanimate the corpse of Rush Limbaugh, damn), and local politicians who can’t prove “they can "win" at Sim City/City Skyline and Civilization 6/Democracy before they're allowed to run for office” (an actual quote).

Solutions provided by the gaggle of angry geese on r/Hamilton included mandatory and nonconsensual rehab, a class action lawsuit against the city, cancelling the LRT (you know someone would sneak that in there), “casting out” people experiencing homelessness from our society (one of the worst and most aggressive commenters repeats lines like that, as well as the “bleeding heart” line and one about “enforcing the law” as if it is a stump speech for the next election), ending “hiring diversity” at city hall, buying an aggressive dog to menace neighbours, not sending money to Ukraine, and just be generally mean to Cameron Kroetsch (sorry, friend, the anon Redditors really have it out for you).

The thread was closed when a commenter suggested Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) as a solution.

There’s now a new tag on the subreddit for “Encampments / Shelters & Homelessness”. The posts under the tag are mixed, but many of the comments lean into the same hard right wing messaging and reactionary nonsense in the “done” post. Contrary to the assertions of right wingers (“I expect to be downvoted for this, but…”), most of the posts calling for more funding for supports or even a baseline of compassion have been hidden from view for being overwhelmingly downvoted (Reddit has up and down vote arrows to add a voting element to the conversation - downvote means to disagree).

I am of two minds when it comes to these posts. The first reaction comes from the gut. That’s the reaction that drives me to say that these posts and comments are just plain bad. Not “bad” as in “I disagree”, more “bad” in the sense that they are gleefully and petulantly proud of being ill-informed. These posts are knee-jerk reactions to social issues, eliciting knee-jerk responses from those who view the world the same way or the other way. The whole thing is an enthusiastically nihilistic way of throwing your arms up, shutting off the part of your mind that dreams of better things, and deciding to use the heightened tensions around an issue to start stupid fights with anonymous people behind other screens who, to the initiator, have about as much agency and worth as slightly sentient NPCs.

The second reaction takes a while to get to. And, honestly, it took me a while to find the right words to describe this reaction/approach. But Ryan Broderick summed it up in the Garbage Day weekend-edition (which you should absolutely subscribe to), so I’ll just quote from him.

I say this a lot, but the pandemic really fried our world. Faced with a deadly new disease that we had not properly planned for, world leaders first decided that we needed to insulate capitalism as much as possible and then, and only then, did they move on to protecting people. The lockdowns and stay-at-home orders were clunky and poorly implemented, sure, but their major impact was driving people online in droves. We, as humans, crave community and, when we were isolated from others, sought it out in the safest and most accessible ways in the moment. Loads of new folks flooded onto platforms, bringing with them their preconceived notions, beliefs, values, hopes, fears, cat pictures, and argumentative styles.

When a crisis hit (or, more accurately, when a crisis became so big it became visible for all), people used the online forums they found to vent and advance their own weird positions (he said, from his online soapbox).

But we can’t forget that the internet isn’t real life. Reddit is not real life. Those comments, and all the neighbourhood Facebook comments, stupid Tweets, and ill-informed TikToks out there are just online chatter.

So I’m trying to not let the Reddit nonsense bother me. Rather, I’m going to keep having conversations with neighbours, keep writing, and keep sticking up for what I believe in, even if the Redditors downvote me to hell.

The Takeaways

Based on all that, I have a few takeaways:

1. We accept that housing is a human right, but municipalities do not have the power to make that right a reality - The line about “housing is a human right” came up many times during the downtown meeting. But it also became clear that the city cannot simply create housing without other levels of government becoming involved. Sure, community groups (often faith-based) have been building housing, but we have to remember: charity is great, but charity isn’t justice. So we’re at a point where we accept that people have a right to housing, but are dithering with such intensity because we also accept that governments with diametrically opposed values have to collaborate to make that right happen.

2. Any encampment protocol will be designed flawed - The city openly acknowledges that they cannot and will not be able to enforce all the aspects of the protocol, especially around the number of tents and how far they can be from one another. At the downtown meeting, staff could not answer if the protocol would be a bylaw or not.

3. The natalist current runs deep - I’m trying to get into more queer theory (I’m really feeling my queerness recently and want to engage with it academically), but I’m only slightly familiar with concepts like “natalist futurity”. That basically means an obsessive fixation on reproduction and childbearing. Think Handmaid’s Tale or that one weird cousin you have who is obsessed with getting pregananant. Comments from opponents centre children in a weirdly performative way. Not knowing what to say to children if there are tents, children being frightened of people experiencing homelessness or people with mental illness, and, the mother of all natalist attacks: the dirty needle. These strange lines of attack blend stereotypes about people experiencing homelessness, drug users, people who are HIV+, and the mysterious “other” in a public space like we’re bringing back all the greatest hits from the 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s.

4. People love a good populist line of attack - Oh boy, did the crowd ever hoot and holler when someone asked about how much taxpayer money was being wasted on the protocol (the desiccated corpse of Rush Limbaugh begins to twitch back to life). Questions about “only helping people in tents who are from Hamilton” also got big applause. So we’re getting both “natalism” and “nativism” here. The angry letters before both meetings, the nonsense Reddit comments, the fixation on “common sense solutions”…the population really loves that garbage, eh? That speaks to how completely broken our understanding of politics is. Speaking of which…

5. Did everyone fail Grade 10 Civics? - People do not have any understanding of where the responsibilities of the city end and the responsibilities of other levels begin. They don’t understand that cities are made up and the province has all the control. They don’t understand that you can’t just ask Doug Ford to fix the problem (the policies of his government have absolutely made things worse). He can’t just house everyone. He’s the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire label maker/politician who isn’t really interested in all this “bleeding heart” stuff (Limbaugh’s eyes dart open). But, more than that, few folks realize that this is going to require collaboration between levels of government. While the city is trying to change the conversation, both the governments of Doug Ford and, yes, Justin Trudeau, are making the situation worse. Taking your anger out on your local councillor might feel good, but if you’re not talking to MPPs and MPs too, you’re not going to get anywhere.

6. Can theatre be good? - The meetings were political theatre. But the meetings were also radically democratic. They can be both. The mountain meeting was more a chance for councillors to shore up support before 2026, but still gave folks an outlet. The downtown meeting was a chance to learn, but it was still largely performative. Yeah, they can be both theatre and necessary.

7. This isn’t a crisis - This is my last point. A crisis implies something that’s temporary; started a while ago and can end quickly. This is a deep, structural flaw that has been forming for decades. We’ve been barreling toward a cliff since even before the feds stopped funding new housing builds in the 1990s. Let’s face it: the best chance we had to stop us from getting to this point was during the post-war compromise, and that ended in the 1970s. So we’re looking back at least two generations for the folks who could have voted to fix this. Since this has been building for such a long time, the feelings around housing and supports have been engrained in people for decades. Undoing all the bad policies, changing people’s minds, and building what needs to be built will take time. While it is important to acknowledge that, it is also important to remember that many people don’t have time. So there’s a sense of urgency, but the structures in place make it impossible to act effectively in the timeframe we have.

The Way Forward

We need to build non-market housing that gives the people full control over their homes.

We need to properly fund completely universal mental and physical health care.

We need to create community supports so that those who have “fallen through the cracks” can be supported and so that no one is left behind in the future.

We need to destigmatize drug use and mental health challenges and provide supportive, affirming, and holistic supports for anyone struggling.

We need to retrofit our communities to create spaces where people can meet, exchange ideas, provide support to one another, build solidarity, and simply be.

We need to stop gatekeeping Hamilton as if the fact that we were born here makes us better or as if the only people who deserve help are those with a multigenerational history in this city.

We need to embrace new ideas, engage in democratic discussions, and hear other voices, while staying true to our values and remembering the humanity of those with different beliefs.

We need to frame public spending in terms of “investments in people” not simply “wastes of taxpayer dollars” and remind residents that their membership in our community is not based on or elevated because they directly pay property tax and/or own property.

We need to talk to our neighbours in real life.

There are so many other things that need to be done, but those are a start. The amount of time and and effort and energy that has been sunk into this protocol, from the drafting to the meetings to the online survey, has been astronomical. But we can’t forget that the ultimate goal must always be housing for all.

Yes, it will take time, but we have to start somewhere. This is going to require a full-scale political shift, likely meaning more progressive voices around the council horseshoe in 2026, a new provincial government in the same year, and a commitment from whichever federal government we end up with to stop tweaking the housing market to subsidize the bad investments of people who were swept up in the real estate craze and instead, fund housing.

Because we’re in the thick of it, it feels like Hamilton is burning. Tensions are high, anger is blocking people from understanding each other, and we’re getting nowhere fast. But, hopefully, when the red hot passions subside, we can start working together, housed and unhoused, to secure safe, affordable, self-managed housing for all.

Midnight train to Toronto

On Saturday, while throngs of people experienced the hustle and bustle of Toronto Pride, a group of folks in Brantford staged a protest, decrying how challenging it is for them to participate in events just like that one. Brantford lost regular VIA Rail service during the pandemic and, despite the pivot away from work from home/back to working on location, service has not been restored.

Reading about that protest while aboard one of the regular Lakeshore West trains that zip folks from Hamilton to Toronto every day was not lost on me.

I’m a big fan of trains. They’re a great way to get people from place to place, they can be adapted to run more sustainably (they’re already way more sustainable than cars), and they’re just a comfortable way to get around. I used to take VIA from Montreal to Toronto two or three times a month when I lived in MTL during the early days of my PhD. But it always bothered me that I couldn’t just take the train to Hamilton.

As of today, there are no national trains that make a stop in Hamilton, the 10th largest city in the country.

Hamilton had regular national train service from about 1853 to 1992. The Great Western Railway and, after some mergers, the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) operated lines all over Canada and the United States through to the 1890s. Travellers could zip down to Port Dover or up to Collingwood, or head to Boston, New York, or Chicago, all from the tiny Stuart Street station (where the West Harbour GO parking lot is now).

The GTR went bankrupt in 1923 and was folded into CN, which kept passenger service moving through their new station (now LIUNA/West Harbour) until the 60’s. Another piece of the Erl family tapestry: that’s how my paternal grandparents got into town for the first time. Their passenger ship docked in Quebec City and they took a direct train all the way to Hamilton to start the next chapter in their lives.

By 1967 (notably after a massive expansion of the QEW and opening of more of the Highway 401), train service to Hamilton had been whittled down to just two regular lines: the Toronto-Hamilton line and the Toronto-New York line. GO Transit took over the Toronto-Hamilton line in May of that year (which is today’s Lakeshore West) and CN’s passenger service was spun off into VIA in 1978, which kept Hamilton as a stop along the Toronto-New York route for a short while. VIA abandoned Hamilton in 1992 when it moved everything to the new Aldershot station.5

Today, a VIA/Amtrak train from Toronto to New York will stop in Grimsby, plow through Hamilton, and not stop until it reaches Aldershot.

Look, we all know what the problems are: the climate is changing rapidly, housing is increasingly unaffordable, people are disconnected from one another, we’re struggling to advocate for ourselves and our communities in the face of pointless corporate dithering, and we’re all just so galdern tired. The train is honestly a legitimate tool we can employ to help alleviate the issues we face.

The train is more sustainable than hundreds of people in hundreds of dumb little cars on stupid little highways honking at each other all day. We provide regular, reliable, consistent, affordable, and safe train service to smaller communities (like Brantford) and encourage those places to increase their urban density and build more efficiently around transit hubs that feed into those train lines. We have more time to catch up on our favourite podcast, read a book, spend time with friends, and actually see our surroundings instead of focusing on getting five metres ahead of the guy in the Audi beside us. And Canada’s national rail provider, VIA, as well as our regional commuter service, GO, can work collaboratively with communities to determine what their needs are, instead of basing decisions on how many tickets are sold or PRESTO cards are tapped. We're talking about publicly-owned utilities, which should provide consistent service to people regardless of a profit motive.

The goal for the future? High speed, 7 day a week train service between Hamilton and Montreal with stops in Toronto, Kingston, and sometimes Ottawa. Regular train service to places like Niagara, Penetanguishene, Perry Sound, Goderich, Windsor, London, Stratford, Collingwood, PEC, Barrie, Orillia, and Peterborough with high quality public transit systems in each place to connect folks to those lines. Regional trains that connect smaller places, holiday trains to take people to Sauble Beach or Long Point or Wasaga. A province where it is not only possible, but preferable to take the train to reach your destination than to drive on another ugly, bloated, useless 400 series highway. Yeah, that might sound idealistic, but we should shoot for the moon regardless. We owe it to ourselves to be bold.

All in all, good for folks in Brantford for advocating for their train. I hope we all get better trains again some day.

Cool facts for cool people

• Olivia Chow is the mayor-elect of Toronto. That’s awesome news. She was able to win the old city of Toronto very easily, but also won in surprising places like Willowdale and Scarborough. Other takeaways are the poor performance of Brad Bradford (who came in below young activist Chloe Brown) and the 9th place finish for fascist candidate Chris Sky, who immediately called the results fraudulent (as did well-resourced 11th place candidate Xiao Hua Gong). I’ll likely write more about this in the future, but still: congrats to Mayor Chow!