The Noise Project sent surveys to all of the ballot-eligible candidates for the primary election for Rhode Island offices that represent all or parts of Providence. We did not survey independent candidates, but will do so in October in advance of the general election. Below are our assessments of their responses.
(RI House District 1) — Michael Garman has lived in a 3-unit building on College Hill for about a year. He previously lived in Newport, New Haven, and spent a semester in Barcelona, Spain. He said he notices motorcycle noise at night, which is “particularly egregious” on weekend nights, especially in the warmer months, and that it has increased somewhat over time.
He said friends and neighbors comment on noise, and that constituents he has spoken to also cite gas-powered leafblowers as prevalent sources on College Hill. The sources he believes most directly affect Providence residents and that the House should address through legislation are vehicle noise (including engine revving and car alarms) and gas leafblowers. His second-tier priorities are commercial venues (bars, clubs, etc), individuals / events on public property (parks, schools, block parties, etc) and fireworks.
When asked whether he had ever reported excessive noise to a municipal agency (including the police) — and if not, why — he said he was “unsure” if he himself had done so, but that his family did when he was younger. We’re not sure what to make of that answer, but will let voters decide if it’s significant.
Though he has never addressed noise in a job or as a resident or volunteer, he said he’s committed to reducing motorcycle noise. Among other approaches detailed below, he advocates adding a unit to the motorcycle driver’s education curriculum to include the public health-effects of noise (and penalties for violating noise laws). On leafblowers, he supports “a statewide gas-leafblower prohibition and accelerate the timeline [for PVD’s ordinance] — we cannot afford to wait until 2030 for the city’s ban to take effect.”
Michael pledged to introduce a bills to require a state government or independent study of noise and state policies to reduce it to healthy levels and to create an official RI noise policy with measurable goals to reduce noise, and to require the RI governor to formally designate a state official (other than his chief of staff) to implement state noise policy as part of their official responsibilities.
He further pledged to introduce bills to officially designate excessive noise as a public-health issue and part of state health policy, fund public education on noise-related issues, include the adverse health effects of noise in the public-school curricula, measure noise levels in the state, and require annual reports from the governor on noise levels, state polices and actions to reduce them, and the results.
He also said he would advocate for collaboration between state agencies and community organizations (i.e., non-profit organizations) to lower excessive noise levels, increased tangible metrics of state noise enforcement (e.g., citations issued), and introduce bills to fund technological enforcement (e.g., noise cameras), and allowing civilian RI employees to enforce noise laws (akin to state labor inspectors).
“I believe the state should set tangible targets for noise reduction, but the focus should be on outcomes — measuring noise levels and setting goals — rather than processes,” he wrote, adding that “citations should be a tool used when needed,” but “in an ideal world, we would have no need to issue citations.”
We think the role of citations isn’t simply to show enforcement effort or punish for its own sake, but (as with all laws) to serve as a deterrent. In lieu of personal consequences, some residents engage, often deliberately, in detrimental conduct. We don’t think other people should continue to have that inflicted upon them, while those responsible are spared citations and fines. That just invites more transgression.
Michael said he supports noise cameras as an enforcement mechanism, but that “it is imperative that there be robust privacy protections around the data collected, to ensure that [it’s] not sold to private brokers or shared with federal agencies like ICE.” (We completely agree with this reasonable necessity.) He also said he would introduce legislation to prohibit the sale and installation of modified mufflers, which have long been illegal to use under Rhode Island law, but nonetheless remain rampant in the state.
Michael previously served as a campaign advisor for RI Rep. Enrique Sanchez (District 9), who has a long record of dismissing most noise issues as either unimportant or somehow unjust to those who make excessive noise. Needless to say, we strongly disagree with that view, which led us to ask him if noise is unhealthy for residents of District 1, but not for residents of District 9. He said he and Sanchez don’t agree on everything, and he’s always been more concerned about noise than Sanchez is. Fair enough.
It’s worth noting that his opponent, incumbent RI Rep. Edith Ajello, did not return the survey to us. She contacted the Noise Project to say that it was too logistically difficult to fill out, and we sent a re-formatted version to make that easier, but we never received her response. As a result, we cannot endorse her.
On the basis of his responses to our candidate survey, the Noise Project endorses Michael Garman for in the 2026 RI House District 1 primary election.
(RI House District 12) — Here’s how Arlette Hidalgo describes where she lives now and previously: “I have only lived in Providence in these different streets — 1478 Broad Street (noise levels there were horrible), 115 Sumter Street (neighbors don’t respect the time to play music)” and her current address just north of I-95 and Roger Williams Park in Lower South Providence, where she notes “traffic noise and I am afraid soon the NIGHT CLUBS.” We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. Arlette knows PVD noise.
The sources she cites are motorcycles and neighbors playing music “usually every weekend,” along with night clubs, weekend BBQs, fireworks, and modified car mufflers. “This is a very important topic,” she wrote, “because every door I have knocked [on], people talk about the noise level in my district … Some houses play music at night and it’s not good for seniors and little kids, especially those with disabilities.”
When asked what sources of noise she thinks most directly affect Providence residents and that she would prioritize for legislative action in the General Assembly, Arlette indicated vehicle noise (primarily modified mufflers and over-amplified audio systems), highway traffic, and fireworks. She did not assign a priority to any of the other common sources we listed, or indicate any other sources in our write-in option.
She also skipped a question on whether she had ever reported noise to a municipal agency, but did say that “through my work as an educator, advocate, and community leader, I’ve listened to residents’ concerns about environmental quality, traffic, and neighborhood health. I believe elected officials should take community concerns seriously and work collaboratively with residents, municipalities, public-health experts, and state agencies to identify practical solutions.”
She said she would introduce legislation to require a state government or independent study of noise in RI and the development of policies to reduce it to healthy levels, adding that “I support evidence-based policymaking. If existing data are insufficient, I would support studying the public-health impacts of excessive noise and identifying effective strategies to reduce harmful [levels].”
Arlette also said she would introduce legislation to create an official RI noise policy with measurable goals “that protects public health while balancing transportation, economic development, and community needs,” and publicly request that the governor formally designate a state official (other than their chief of staff) to implement a state noise policy as part of their official responsibilities, saying she supports “assigning clear responsibility within state government so that noise-related policies are coordinated, transparent, and accountable.” Multiple candidates stressed a need for accountability.
She didn’t commit to introducing legislation to officially designate excessive noise as a public-health issue and part of state health policy, but said “excessive noise should be recognized as both a public-health and environmental justice issue, particularly in neighborhoods where residents experience multiple environmental burdens.” We firmly agree: Those areas need less noise, not more reflexive defense of it.
Similarly, she didn’t commit to introduce legislation to fund public education on noise-related issues, but did say that “public awareness can help residents understand the health effects of excessive noise and encourage responsible behaviors that benefit the entire community.” It’s necessary, but not sufficient.
Arlette said she would introduce legislation to include the adverse health effects of noise as part of the
Rhode Island public school curricula for students who currently receive health-related education, stating that “age-appropriate education about hearing health, environmental health, and noise pollution can be incorporated into existing health-education curricula.”
She also said she would introduce legislation to fund continuous measurement of noise levels in RI, and require the governor to issue annual reports on noise levels, specific polices and actions to reduce it, and the results. “I support targeted monitoring in areas where residents have reported persistent concerns, particularly near major transportation corridors and industrial areas, to guide evidence-based policy-making,” she wrote, adding that “annual reporting would improve transparency, allow policymakers to measure progress, and help evaluate whether state actions are reducing harmful noise exposure.” Amen.
Arlette said she would introduce legislation to promote collaboration between state agencies and community organizations (such as non-profits) to reduce noise, and to increase the tangible metrics of state enforcement (such as citations issued), but did not offer responses on technological enforcement (e.g., noise cameras) or letting civilians enforce non-criminal RI noise laws (like DLT labor inspectors).
She said she would introduce legislation to prohibit the commercial sale and installation of modified
mufflers, which have long been illegal to use under RI law, but remain rampant in the state, saying she supports “strengthening enforcement and exploring measures to reduce their sale and installation while ensuring legislation is practical and enforceable.” We concur, and think that such legislation is overdue.
Finally, Arlette did not answer a question on whether she would publicly advocate replacing the current superintendent of the RI State Police, DMV administrator, or director of the Department of Business Regulation with new leaders, saying that those “appointments should be based on qualifications, integrity, performance, and the ability to effectively serve Rhode Islanders. I do not believe it is appropriate to support replacing specific individuals without first evaluating their performance and the needs of the agencies they lead.” We think the ongoing unhealthy noise levels in RI indicate a dereliction by those agencies’ leaders, but appreciate her willingness to respond to — if not answer — the question.
On the basis of her answers to our survey, the Noise Project endorses Arlette Hidalgo in the RI House primary election.
Her opponent in House District 12, Carlos Cedeno, did not return our survey, so we cannot endorse him. We also heard from Rep. Grace Diaz — who is running unopposed in District 11, worked on fireworks legislation several years ago, and who we endorsed in 2022 — said she would fill out the survey but never returned it to us, so we cannot endorse her either. And Rep. Rebecca Kislak, who’s running unopposed in District 4 and worked on leafblower legislation several years ago, debated whether to fill out the survey and ultimately chose not to, which was disappointing. For that reason, we cannot endorse her.
(Lt. Governor) — Cindy Coyne has lived in a single-family home in Barrington for 30 years, and though she’s never lived in Providence, she did lived in Pawtucket for 34 years, so she has some sense of the noise levels in a Rhode Island city (though those noise levels have almost certainly risen since she left).
Asked about sources she has personally experienced, she said there have been times when she was aware of excessive noise around her home, especially at night when sound carries further — particularly from the Seekonk Speedway over three miles away — and that she understands the concerns that residents of Providence and other RI cities have about noise pollution.
Coyne further cited neighborhood construction work resulting in high decibel levels, and occasionally loud (presumably residential) gatherings for special events. She said all of those sources would be best described as “episodic,” and that she’s never had to contact local authorities about them, adding that her friends and neighbors “very rarely” mention noise.
Asked if she had addressed noise in her previous roles in government — which include RI State Police officer, RI state senator, and Barrington Town Council member — she noted that the lieutenant governor has “no direct statutory or constitutional authority” on the issue, but that she’d seek to ensure that all laws and ordinances are followed, be responsive to constituents, and assist those seeking to enforce noise ordinances to maintain the quality of life in our communities.” Given her background, that’s disappointing.
She said she would be “open to supporting” legislation requiring an independent, state-commissioned study of excessive noise in RI and an official policy to reduce it to healthy levels, noting that she thinks it adversely impacts city residents more than suburban ones, but that “equitable enforcement can impact anyone from any community,” and that she would support raising public awareness of “individual rights and responsibilities” on the issue. That’s a heavily parsed response, but not an entirely disqualifying one.
Asked if the LG should be designated to oversee state policy and efforts to address noise as part of their official responsibilities — and if not, which state official should be assigned that role — she asserted that RI municipalities and some state departments are responsible for creating and / or enforcing noise laws, but she’d “welcome opportunities to be involved in quality-of-life issues impacting constituents,” although under state law LGs only have the visibility of their position to focus on such issues. Oddly, her response omits the General Assembly’s pre-eminent role in regulation, policy, and administration of noise control.
Despite her awareness of the adverse health effects of excessive noise and willingness to “consider” designating noise as a RI public-health issue and RIDOH policy priority, her stated rationale was that “quality-of-life issues are important to Rhode Island.” She noted that municipalities, the EPA, RI DEM, and DMV “may also have roles to play” (spoiler alert: they do) “depending on the source of the noise.”
She added that she would be would be supportive of RIDOH having a role in raising awareness,” which it already has, even if it hasn’t noticeably fulfilled it in recent years. (Years ago, RIDOH actually had sound-level meters, though it’s not clear what they were used for or what happened to them.) Interestingly, she noted that excessive noise is a criminal offense under RI state law, and thus the Attorney General’s office should act as the state-wide enforcement agency when municipalities fail to discharge that responsibility.
Coyne demurred on state measurement of noise levels, saying it’s best addressed by municipal officials who choose to implement such policies, and the attorney general can use their powers “to address such concerns as well.” We’re not sure how data collection such as this falls under the purview of the AG, and think she probably confused sound measurement with noise cameras — especially as she cited a non-existent Providence “demonstration project … including the installation of noise-monitoring equipment.”
She was somewhat more supportive of annual state reports on noise levels in RI municipalities, specific state policies and actions to reduce noise, and their demonstrable results, first again touting public awareness, quality of life, and the mythical demonstration project by the city of Providence, before stating that she “would welcome an annual report documenting the impact and progress made” on these issues.
Asked if she supports a state public-education campaign to inform RI residents about the adverse health-effects of noise, she said it could be achieved solely via the news and social media — which is unlikely —but then said she supports investments to improve health outcomes for all RI residents, which a public-eduction campaign on noise would certainly do. We’re frankly baffled by these incompatible statements.
She also whiffed on requiring RIDE to include health effects of noise in RI public-school health curricula, and on prioritizing state enforcement of various noise sources, saying they all deserve the same priority. Finally, she seemed to hint that if she took over from the governor for some reason (e.g., as McKee did after Raimondo left to serve as Commerce Secretary, she would replace agency heads who did not reflect her views on enforcement policies. For Coyne, that seems to be as candid as her statements get.
Given Cindy Coyne’s extensive experience in various public service roles in RI, her tepid responses to our candidate survey mean that we cannot endorse her in the primary election for lieutenant governor.
We’re not sure how Coyne’s responses compare to the other candidates for lieutenant governor, as she’s the only one who filled out the survey — and deserves kudos for doing so, even if most of her answers were unhelpfully vague. It’s worth noting, however, that Xaykham Khamsyvoravong oversaw deployment of now fully operative noise cameras in Newport as mayor (and unlike PVD Mayor Smiley, who still hasn’t deployed even a test program, did so without first seeking an unnecessary change in RI state law).
We would also issue what amounts to a non-endorsement of Lt. Gov. candidate Sue AnderBois, a Providence City Council member who drafted and shepherded PVD’s dismal gas-leafblower ordinance through that body. We have written at length about the fundamental flaws in the ordinance, and urge both Providence and other RI residents to read our analysis of it before voting for AnderBois for Lt. Gov. As far as we know, its nearly eight-year implementation period is the longest of any U.S. leafblower ordinance.
AnderBois now cites a purported veto threat from PVD Mayor Smiley for the ordinance’s unconscionably glacial implementation timeline, but did not raise any public objections about it at the time — effectively enabling a “backroom” political deal without informing PVD residents or bringing any public pressure to bear on the mayor. In our view, AnderBois put her interests as a future LG candidate (with a state-wide constituency and potential donors) ahead of those of her constituents. We oppose her election as LG.
1 thought on “2026 RI Primary Election Endorsements”
Comments are closed.