2026 Mayoral Candidate Survey Results

The Noise Project surveys ballot-qualified candidates for Providence and RI elections that include PVD, and offers endorsements based on their responses, record in office (if any), public statements, and any communications with the Project itself. Below is our assessment of surveys for the mayoral primary. To go directly to our endorsement, click here. City Council and state office endorsements are forthcoming.

The Noise Project sent surveys to incumbent Mayor Brett Smiley, challenger RI Rep. David Morales, and Republican David Talan. Mayor Smiley filled out a similar survey in 2022, and has a record from his first term as mayor. (Talan told us the survey was too long to fill out. Voters can draw their own conclusions.)

Personal experience of noise

Mayor Smiley has lived in a multi-family house on College Hill for 9 years, other locations on the East Side for 10 years, and a year on Smith Hill. He also has a house in Tiverton, and has also lived in Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Sacramento. Rep. Morales has rented a two-bedroom apartment in Mt. Pleasant for seven years, lived in Fox Point for a year, and previously lived in Soledad and Irvine, California.

Smiley says he hears “seasonal” noise around his home, citing vehicle noise (loud music) in the Spring and Summer, fireworks for July 4 week, and occasional student noise. Morales cited seasonal music after 9:00 p.m. throughout the Summer, and fireworks prevalent in early July. Smiley says the level of noise has decreased, whereas Morales says it’s the same. (Most Providence residents who fill out the Noise Project’s Community Noise Survey say that noise levels have increased.)

Interestingly, Smiley says that his neighbors and friends in the city coment on noise, and acknowledges that it’s “a common concern throughout the city.” Morales says friends living in South Providence have shared concerns about loud music from businesses, and a lack of city action to address their concerns.

Smiley says he has never reported noise to the city as a private citizen (i.e., not as mayor or other government roles he’s had). Morales says that as a Rhode Island state representative, he has reported excessive firework noise to the local Providence Police district commander on behalf of his neighbors.

Noise priorities in government

We asked the candidates to rank noise sources in terms of their priority in addressing them. Smiley ranked residential noise — neighbors / house parties / etc — as his highest priority (10), and vehicle noise — over-amplified audio (9), engine revving (8), and commercial trucks (7) — as his next ones. Oddly, he only rated modified mufflers a 4, even though PVD residents tell us it’s the second most-common source in the city. Leafblowers were ranked a 6. Tellingly, he did not rank commercial noise sources such as bars / clubs / restaurants, or events on public property, which all have city oversight.

On ranking noise sources, Morales’ highest priorities are over-amplified commercial venues (bars, clubs, etc), unsanctioned pop-up parties, fireworks, ATVs, and early-hours commercial vehicles (garbage collection). Lower priorities include residential noise (house parties), vehicle noise (modified mufflers, over-amplified stereos, and engine revving). Leafblowers and highway traffic are among the lowest.

We asked the candidates what they’ve done as government officials to reduce noise, and specifically noted that merely listing efforts was insufficient — we want information on the results of any efforts. Nonetheless, Smiley listed a series of things he has touted as reducing noise, with no mention of the outcomes. This is a recurring feature of his responses to the survey questions.

Morales said noise has not been a focus of his work in the legislature, but that he represents some of Providence’s densest neighborhoods, “where families are impacted by illegally modified exhausts, car stereos, and late-night music,” and that “noise is a public-health and quality-of-life issue that falls hardest on working-class and immigrant residents.” That last part is rare to hear from public officials.

He said he would establish a noise-concern hotline activated after 9:00 p.m., hold businesses that install illegal exhausts accountable at the source, use city licensing authority against commercial venues that repeatedly violate the rules, and “engage residents directly.” We’re not sure what the last item entails. He added that ongoing noise issues aren’t due to “a shortage of complaints” but of the city’s “follow-through.”

Noise Policy

We asked if the candidates would commission an independent panel or consultant to study noise  and develop a systemic plan to reduce it to healthy levels, as the City Council requested in 2021, and their answers were a major area of differentiation. Smiley said no, asserting that the city already has the information it needs and has been applying it. But it’s not clear how that squares with his statement that noise is still a “common” complaint in PVD. If the city has the info it needs, why aren’t its efforts working?

Morales said yes, and noted that the City Council unanimously passed its resolution in 2021, citing the health effects of noise and its disproportionate impact on vulnerable neighborhoods, and the Elorza
administration ignored it — as did Smiley, even as he acknowledged noise as a significant issue. He said he won’t ignore the Council’s request, and will “commission the study and produce an actual plan.”

There was similar divergence on whether the candidates would publicize an official, outcome-oriented noise policy similar to other city policies on housing, employment, sustainability, transportation, etc. Smiley said that his noise “policies live within several existing ordinances, policies, and protocols.” This confirms residents’ sense that PVD’s “strategy” is largely a patchwork of ad hoc technocratic tweaks, and contrasts sharply with its approach to other municipal issues, which have more comprehensive policies.

Morales, however, said that he would publish an “outcome-oriented noise policy with goals [that his administration would be] accountable for — the same way we would treat housing or public health,” adding that “a policy that sits in a drawer is not a policy.” This is a distinct difference between them.

Similarly, both candidates were asked if they would designate a city official to oversee noise-reduction efforts as part of their job. Smiley said that such “oversight happens in many departments” —even though he has identified his chief of staff as the person overseeing noise reduction. It also implies that naming a noise “czar” requires consolidating city efforts within a single agency. Nothing prevents him from assigning noise-policy oversight to the head of the Human Services — other than having no overall policy to coordinate. The Noise Project has long advocated for a broader vision of city noise-abatement.

By contrast, Morales said he would form a civilian noise unit within Providence Police, “so neighbors can easily report noise issues and have a sense of reassurance that their concerns will be validated and acted upon,” while taking what he described as a “de-escalation” approach. “Neighbors deserve to enjoy their homes without excessive, persistent noise, while ensuring enforcement is fair, responsive, and accountable.” We applaud his willingness to consider new approaches rather than more of the same.

When asked if they would officially designate noise as a public-health issue, Smiley demurred and offered a similar response to the question on noise policy — i.e., it’s already addressed in multiple programs. We think that’s the antithesis of what’s actually needed. Morales said yes, and that formally designating noise as a public-health issue “lets us direct resources and attention where the burden is heaviest,” which we took to mean areas in PVD with the highest noise. He also said that “treating it as a nuisance rather than a health issue is exactly the mistake this city has made.” We couldn’t agree more.

When asked if their administrations would measure noise on an ongoing basis to produce actionable data, Smiley diverted from his generally affirmative answer in 2022, saying it is already being measured through individual readings taken by license-enforcement officers and during special events. (That’s incidental, not ongoing, measurement.) Morales said yes, and that the city “cannot manage what it does not measure, and ongoing measurement is what turns a policy from a slogan into results.” Ditto.

Changing PVD’s Culture of Noise

When asked if their administrations will issue annual reports on noise levels in Providence, the policies and actions to reduce it, and those efforts’ measurable results, Smiley again departed from his 2022 answer and simply said the information would remain available (as is true under every PVD mayor). That doesn’t sound to us like a mayor who stands behind the outcomes of his noise-reduction efforts.

Morales said yes, and that “annual public reporting on [noise] levels, actions, and outcomes is how residents hold the administration accountable, and I welcome that accountability” as mayor. Many residents indicate that a sense of accountability has been lacking in Providence for quite some time.

When asked if the city would educate residents on noise-related issues, Smiley said “the city does not have designated promotion money for specific issues,” and instead relies on grant funds and media coverage. Yet he then noted that the “city funded tenant education,” which seems like a contradiction. If PVD can fund tenant education (and it should), we assume it can also fund noise education — if it wants to. Our sense is that that’s the real issue. It has done some outreach that appears very narrowly targeted.

Morales said yes, and that “it must be done equitably and in multiple languages … so the communities most affected are actually reached rather than left out.” That makes eminent sense to us.

When asked if they would advocate for including the adverse health-effects of noise in the Providence public school curricula, Smiley said the decision was up to the school district, but that “if there is interest” in doing so, “we would be supportive.” He didn’t indicate how that would be determined.

Morales said he would advocate for incorporating the health effects of noise into age-appropriate health education, but that he’d pursue it “in partnership with educators” and the school district “rather than imposing curriculum from the outside.” We think that’s a good idea, if it centers on the health and science information, but not if it allows those things to be watered down or even vetoed for non-science reasons.

Policy Implementation

When asked if they would collaborate with community organizations, increase tangible metrics of police enforcement (not merely resources and efforts), propose civilian enforcement of noise laws (akin to parking control officers), and use technical means such as noise cameras, Smiley duplicated his answers from 2022, responding affirmatively to all but civilian enforcement.

We’ve been disappointed by the lack of collaboration in his first term, and though the metrics of police enforcement have improved from the farcical levels under Elorza, they’re still not remotely responsive to the scale of excessive noise afflicting residents (as indicated by the ~5,500 noise reports to the police alone year after year). Smiley did announce a noise-camera initiative in early 2023, but it is still yet to be operating in mid-2026! Again, resources and efforts are necessary but not sufficient absent real results.

Morales answered yes to all of the policies listed except increasing metrics of police enforcement, saying it’s not his “primary lever” and he doesn’t think “the answer to noise is more police stops in communities.” For the record, the Noise Project believes relying solely on the police to react to noise is ineffective and neglects most residents. We’ve urged a pro-active, preventative policy that emphasizes education and a more targeted enforcement strategy that Morales himself added: “Focus on the worst repeat-offenders.”

When asked how they would act to curtail the legal sales and installations of illegal modified mufflers, Smiley said the city is “using its licensing process … to explain regulations and penalties to businesses.” It’s not exactly clear what that entails, but the ubiquity of illegal mufflers on PVD streets indicates it’s not ameliorative. At the risk of repetition, it’s not enough to just list efforts — they have to yield actual results.

Morales said he would “go after the source rather than only ticketing drivers” by “using the city’s
licensing and inspection authority to hold accountable shops that knowingly install illegal exhausts, and working with the state on point-of-sale enforcement. Targeting businesses that profit from breaking the law is more effective, and fairer, than chasing individual residents one stop at a time.”

The survey question did not make clear that, for reasons only a schizophrenic could abide, using a modified mufflers is illegal in both PVD and RI, but their commercial sale and installation is not. We think a mayor who’s serious about reducing noise — and has experience in state government — can find ways to curtail and even end that disparity, which contributes to the city’s many mixed messages about noise.

Finally, when asked whether they would change the current commissioner of public safety (now Smiley), police chief, city solicitor, and / or members of the Board of Licenses (before their three-year terms expire), Smiley said no — which is not surprising, given that he chose all of them.

Morales said that “personnel decisions of this kind deserve a serious review, not a campaign question-naire pledge,” and involves “assessing who is aligned with my priorities on public safety, equity, and quality of life.” He noted that he’s been openly critical of how City Solicitor Jeff Dana handled prosecution of peaceful student protesters, and residents should expect different values and actions with him as mayor.

Click here to read our endorsement in the 2026 Providence mayoral primary election.

---