We Cautiously Endorse Matt McDermott for City Council
Of the five official candidates in the Ward 2 City Council special election, three of the four Democratic candidates responded to our survey on noise issues and policy. We were disappointed that David Caldwell didn’t respond — despite publicly citing noise as an issue — and could not reach Brown student Axel Brito through the local, state, or student Republican Party groups. We‘ll try to reach him before the election itself.
That left the three Democratic candidates who did respond: Jill Davidson, Jeff Levy, and Matt McDermott. All three have all lived in much bigger cities than Providence, including Boston, London, Minneapolis, NY City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, and thus are familiar with noise levels in large metropolitan areas.
All three say they notice noise in Ward 2, though McDermott said only “occasionally” and Davidson said she only hears gas-fueled leafblowers (and even then did not note them as a priority for action if she wins).1 Levy says he hears vehicle noise but did not rank it as a high priority, instead putting residential and commercial noise — loud music and leafblowers — as a much higher priority.2
Levy said that noise levels have been higher at various times in the last 27 years than they are now. Davidson said they haven’t increased in 20 years, and McDermott said they’ve decreased in the four years at his current residence, specifically citing ATVs. Unlike Levy and Davidson, he ranked vehicle noise as a high priority — which comports with residents’ experiences — and leafblowers as somewhat high, but unlike Levy sees residential and commercial noise a low priority.
McDermott said he heard Ward 2 residents’ concerns about vehicle noise while campaigning, and called for “consistent” enforcement of muffler laws, and “pro-activemanagement” of noise by the city. He talked about “collaborating” with residents, and “transparent follow-through” — two elements that have been sorely lacking from both Mayor Smiley and the current City Council.If he’s elected, we intend to hold him to that.
City noise policy
Levy he would vote to create 1) an independent panel or consultant to study noise in the city — which the City Council called for in 2021 but never followed through on — and devise a plan to reduce it, 2) an official noise policy based on that plan, and 3) call on the mayor to publicly designate a member of his staff (other than the chief of staff) to lead efforts to reduce noise.
Davidson said she would “consider” voting for a panel or consultant, but would need to know the costs — a recurrent theme in her responses — and similarly would not commit to a city noise policy or asking the mayor to appoint a staff member (other than the chief of staff) as his noise “point person.” For someone who recognizes excessive noise as a public health issue (see below), all three responses seem far too hesitant.
By contrast, McDermott supports a formal study to “map noise hotspots, quantify trends,” and “build a budgeted action plan. This gives the Council and residents clear benchmarks for progress.” We heard similar rhetoric from Brett Smiley in his first election campaign, but haven’t seen any of it come to pass.
He also said he would “welcome the opportunity to work with community stakeholders, neighborhood groups, and city agencies” to identify a “strong, realistic, and enforceable” municipal noise policy. (Again, Smiley said a variation of this as well, but hasn’t followed through.) If McDermott is elected, we hope he proves more sincere.
He also asserted that he would call on the mayor to publicly designate a city staff member to lead noise policy, because “accountability matters,” and that “it should be someone with the authority to align enforcement, community engagement, and policy implementation so residents can see real progress.” [emphasis added]
Mayor Smiley’s chief of staff has that authority, but neither she nor he ever cites her noise-reduction efforts or results. To the degree they happen, which is impossible to track, they’re certainly not overt — and hardly make her “accountable” to the public for any progress or failures. We need a publicly designated “noise czar” who residents can contact and, if warranted, blame for continued excessive noise levels. The mayor is avoiding this by subsuming noise within the chief of staff’s portfolio.
Public health / policy
Davidson and McDermott both said they view excessive noise as a public-health issue — with the latter saying it makes reducing it not “optional” but “necessary” — yet both nonetheless refer to it elsewhere as a quality-of-life issue. It is both, but compared to its adverse health effects, quality-of-life considerations seem secondary, and the phrase is often deliberately used by noise denialists to dismiss noise as a mere annoyance.
McDermott did state that noise is “not simply a nuisance” and “deserves policy status alongside air quality, lead exposure, and sustainable transportation.” Over fifty years of federal legislation and scientific research substantiates that view, which resonates with those working to improve public health.
Levy, by contrast, was apparently unaware of the public-health effects of noise, but took the time to learn about it on the Noise Project website, and said he now views it primarily as a public health issue. He said he would “probably” propose measuring noise in the city once he understood it more, would ask the mayor to issue annual noise reports, “possibly” support funding to educate city residents on the adverse health effects of noise, and include it in the health curriculum for Providence schools.
Davidson differed in that she said she would “consider” measuring noise if the costs weren’t “unsustainable” — an austerity-tinged response to a policy idea that isn’t very expensive. (The Noise Project, a non-profit that lacks the resources of a municipality, is already doing it.) McDermott again echoed candidate Smiley’s rhetoric from 2022, saying “You cannot manage what you don’t measure.” Smiley has nonetheless avoided measuring it, which begs the question of whether he’s actually managing it, and if so, how he plans to measure the supposed results and claim credit for them.
Davidson described asking the mayor to issue annual reports on noise and his actions to reduce it as “reasonable,” but once again said she would only “consider” public education on noise effects and needed to know the costs. Both she and McDermott said that proposing the inclusion of noise in public-school health curriculum is outside the City Council’s purview, and though they’re technically correct (to the degree that the Council is not responsible for creating school curriculum), it can certainly propose adding noise to it.
Long-term Providence residents know that when City Council members actually want a specific policy outcome, they can usually find ways to achieve it — and conversely, when they say they can’t do something, that usually means that they actually just don’t want to do it. We recognize the difference, and see it on a regular basis. (To his credit, McDermott suggested other ways to achieve the same educational outcomes.)
McDermott said an annual noise report would “foster transparency, enable resident oversight, and ensures noise stays on the agenda rather than slipping between election cycles” — all valid points. He said the report should include “enforcement data (muffler citations, noise-camera violations, etc), budget commitments, education programs, and adjusted targets for the following year,” all of which sound well-considered. We expect a candidate who proposes this to actually live up to it in office.
He also supports a public education campaign on noise, saying that he’s too often “heard from neighbors who feel disconnected from city decisions or unaware of what’s being done. That’s something we need to change. Clear communication and transparency are part of the job.”
The Noise Project seconds that — in regard to the mayor and the City Council, both of which tend to work behind the scenes and present residents with pre-determined policies that are then pushed through with insufficient public involvement and undue haste. (Adopting a two-week City Council meeting-notice policy would be a good start. The current two-day notice is the legal minimum, and is effectively undemocratic.)
Noise enforcement
All three candidates asserted familiarity with city and state noise laws, which is unusual for most PVD residents, although Levy is an attorney. He said he’d be “happy” to include community groups in addressing excessive noise, but is merely “open” to increasing police enforcement, using civilian staff to enforce noise laws (akin to parking enforcement or building inspectors), and using technological enforcement such as noise cameras. Levy also said he would publicly call on the city attorney and RI attorney general to fully enforce Providence ordinances and state laws prohibiting modified mufflers, particularly their sale and installation within the city.
Davidson supports involving community organizations and technical means to help reduce excessive noise levels. She does not support more enforcement of noise ordinances, whether by the police or a civilian unit. This non-enforcement perspective runs counter to the views expressed by Ward 2 residents who have shared their experience of noise through our Community Noise Survey.
McDermott described current noise enforcement as “inconsistent” and said “laws haven’t kept pace with modern vehicle and sound technologies — so modernization and resourcing are needed.” We certainly agree with the first statement, but think the city can do much more to enforce existing laws before debating new ones. It’s not a question of methodology as much as political will. We know that city officials don’t put up with excessive noise near their homes, but they seem far too indifferent to the conditions that other residents are forced to endure on a daily basis.
McDermott was broadly supportive of policy options such as more police enforcement and even potential civilian enforcement, though he thinks better coordination between existing city agencies is preferable as a first step. He suggests establishing “an inter-departmental Noise Task Force that coordinates data, enforcement, education, and community response” — which shares some similarities with the city’s existing but mostly under-the-radar Nuisance Task Force that is captive of the city attorney.
Not surprisingly, Davidson demurred on asking the city attorney and RI AG to fully enforce city and state laws prohibiting modified mufflers, particularly with regard to their sale and installation, whereas McDermott supports holding city and state officials accountable for sales and installation of illegal modified mufflers.
Our endorsement
When it comes to first-time candidates, the Noise Project’s policy is to either endorse (or not) on the basis of their statements, since we have no other information with which to evaluate them. Thus, we cannot endorse a candidate who does not respond to our survey, as that indicates either disinterest in, or deliberate avoidance of, important noise issues.
Jill Davidson responded to our survey, but on the basis of her mostly hedging and middle-of-the-road responses to our candidate survey, we cannot endorse her. Her answers seem to be playing it too safe, and trying to avoid taking a position on most noise issues. That’s not what Ward 2 residents need in a City Council representative — there are already too many Council members who downplay and / or rationalize the adverse effects of noise, or worse, talk about addressing it but never take meaningful action.
Jeff Levy’s responses were somewhat encouraging, though he’s not the strongest of the three candidates on noise issues and public policies to address them. Our sense is that, if elected, he’ll be reasonably responsive to noise issues in Ward 2 and elsewhere in the city. Thus, we find ourselves adopting the terminology of the investment community with regard to his candidacy: Our position on him is “neutral,” rather than either “buy” (i.e., endorse) or “sell” (do not endorse). To be continued.
On paper, Matt McDermott seems like the clear front-runner to receive the Noise Project’s endorsement in the Ward 2 special election. His responses to our questions were more complete than the other respondents, and his positions are closest to ours.
That said, it’s not unusual for candidates to tell voters and potential endorsers what they want to hear — we experienced that in the mayoral election in 2022, and with General Assembly candidates in 2024, and have become more wary of the dynamic ever since. The mayor’s disappointing record over the last three years will be Exhibit A in the 2026 election, if nothing changes by then.
In that context, the Noise Project cautiously endorses Matt McDermott for Ward 2 City Council member, with the caveat that we’re skeptical of whether he’ll actually back up his rhetoric with action if elected — and the declaration that both Ward 2 residents and the Noise Project will hold him to his statements in response to our candidate survey.
We judge city officials on what they actually do, not merely what they say. Mayor Smiley has a year to address that discrepancy in regard to measuring noise, a publicly declared PVD noise policy, and effective enforcement for deterrence. Matt McDermott will be held to the same standard.
And needless to say, if one of the candidates we didn’t endorse wins the election, we’ll work with them to the greatest extent possible to promote public policies that reduce unhealthy noise in the city. We always support genuine action to address excessive, unhealthy, and unnecessary noise — and scorn performative talk and “regulatory theater.” The City Council needs more of the former and far less of the latter. There is an opportunity to redress that imbalance now in Ward 2.
__________
1 Davidson noted that she suffers from hearing loss, and thus may not experience noise levels as other residents do. We don’t think this “disqualifies” her in addressing noise issues, as much of the sound that residents report is low-frequency bass vibrations that are felt as much as heard — and it’s important for City Council members to be able to relate to issues they may not experience themselves.
2 On the basis of their responses, we can’t help but wonder if Levy or Davidson would have voted for City Council member Sue AnderBois’ ordinance that takes seven years to ban gas-fueled leafblowers. Perhaps that’s why she rammed it through the Council in October — instead of waiting a few weeks for a new Ward 2 Council member who might have voted against it.