Independent Jay Gotra has lived in a single-family residential home in East Greenwich for 14 years. He has never lived in PVD on an ongoing basis, but said he has spent considerable time in the city staying in hotels and corporate apartments, and it’s helped him “understand the noise issues that Providence residents face on a daily basis. It’s one thing to hear about it; it’s another to experience it yourself.”
“I’ve had voters complain to me directly about the noise issues they face in Providence,” he said. “That’s actually how the issue got on my radar. When you’re talking to residents door-to-door and hearing the same stories about sleep disruption, loud vehicles, and feeling ignored by city officials, you start to understand that this is a real quality-of-life issue for a lot of people” — and even more so a public health issue.
Gotra he notices noise around his home, particularly due to living across from a school. “School traffic and events certainly create noise at various times throughout the day and the school year,” he said, but it’s never reached a level requiring action. “I haven’t lived with the kind of persistent, chronic noise that Providence residents describe,” and that “for many residents, is a daily reality they can’t just ‘wait out’.”
He said he’s learned more about noise as an issue from residents across the state, and “come to appreciate how significant it is for people who live in denser, more urban areas.” Gotra also lived in India for fourteen years, Dallas for four years, and Phoenix for a year, and noted that “each of those places had its own noise profile,” and “has given me perspective on how different communities manage — or fail to manage — urban noise.”
Asked about his approach to public policy on noise, he described it as “grounded in collaboration and education rather than just enforcement. I don’t believe in big government solutions that promise a designated official or a new bureaucracy to solve a problem. I believe in bringing people together — residents, community organizations like the Noise Project, health professionals, and local officials — to educate the public about the real heartaches and problems that noise causes our citizens, and to work collaboratively on policies that actually work.” We certainly support trying this comprehensive approach.
“Specifically,” he continued, “I would work with the DMV on vehicle-inspection standards, support community organizations that are already doing the data collection and advocacy work, and ensure that commercial noise from licensed establishments is connected to licensing decisions. But I want to be clear: The goal is solutions that work for residents, not government expansion for its own sake.”
As taxpayers, Noise Project volunteers and supporters have no interest in government expansion per se, but rather in its willingness to implement its own health and commercial policies — and effectiveness in doing so.
Gotra said he would be open a state study and policy on noise, but “would want to review what we already know, identify the gaps in our understanding, and then determine what additional data we need to make informed policy decisions.” That makes sense, especially if data such as municipal noise reports can be utilized. It would help if the RI Departments of Health and Environmental Management tracked it.
“What I can commit to is taking the issue seriously and ensuring that any noise-reduction efforts are grounded in data and focused on the residents who are most affected, he said. “I would work with organizations like the Noise Project, Brown University, and [other] community groups to build on the work that’s already been done rather than starting from scratch.” We think there’s a value in the ostensible impartiality of state officials in determining noise levels and the areas with the greatest exposure to it.
“Different communities face different noise challenges, and I don’t believe a one-size-fits-all approach is the right answer,” Gotra said. “This requires a concerted effort to understand specific problems people face in specific areas, and then working with those communities to develop solutions that address their reality. A policy that works for a dense Providence neighborhood may not be appropriate for a suburban community in East Greenwich or a rural area in South County.” We agree that noise levels and sources vary geographically, but believe state tolerance of unhealthy noise levels should not be politicized.
In response to a question about publicizing RI noise policy, he said he believes in “being transparent with the public about what government is doing,” and that its approach to the issue “would be publicized and communicated clearly. But I want to make sure we’re … not [simply] creating a policy document that looks comprehensive but doesn’t actually reduce noise for the residents who need relief.” Amen to that.
Asked if he would appoint a specific official responsible for implementing a state noise policy, he echoed previous statements that he wouldn’t “promise a designated official or a new bureaucracy as a solution … I believe in accountability and collaboration. Noise policy should be addressed through existing channels — working with RIDOH, RIDEM, DMV, and local governments — and by supporting the community organizations that are already doing the heavy lifting on this issue.”
We have never advocated for a new RI administrative body to implement the state’s own noise policy. On the contrary: We always just tried to cajole existing state (and municipal) agencies to do what their own laws require. But accountability means someone has to be responsible for what those agencies do (or don’t) to address noise and implement law / policy, and that entails designating the official responsible.
“The Noise Project has done more to document and address noise in Providence than any government agency,” Gotra said.* “That tells me the solution isn’t necessarily a new official with a title; it’s leadership that takes the issue seriously and empowers the people already doing the work. I would ensure that noise is on the agenda for the relevant state agencies and that there’s clear accountability for progress.” We think he may have misconstrued our point about assigning official responsibility, but that’s good enough for us.
He said he is aware of the health effects of noise, and “the Noise Project’s resident testimonials —including parents describing their babies being woken by vehicle noise — illustrate the real-world impact.
As a father of four, I take this personally. Children who can’t sleep can’t learn. Children who suffer hearing damage carry that for life.”
“But I believe the most effective approach is education,” he continued. “Making sure parents, schools, and communities understand these effects, rather than jumping straight to enforcement. When people understand the real harm noise causes, especially to kids, it changes the conversation from ‘it’s just noise’ to ‘this is a health issue.’ That’s where I want to focus.” We also support “education first.”
Asked if he would officially designate noise as a public-health issue and priority of RIDOH policy, Gotra said he is open to doing so, but would “have to learn more before making a formal commitment. I want to understand what a designation like this means in practice — what it would require of RIDOH, what resources it would need, and whether it would actually improve outcomes for residents.”
If it “leads to better education, better collaboration, and better outcomes for citizens who face these challenges,” he said, “then I’m supportive. But I want to measure success by satisfaction rates among citizens who actually face these challenges — not by enforcement metrics or government activity reports.”
That sounds sensible (and even democratic) in theory, in that it aligns noise-reduction efforts with the public experience of noise. But in an excessively loud city such as Providence, the long-term “baseline” noise level — and public exposure to and tolerance thereof (to saying nothing of probable hearing loss) — has permanently shifted most residents’ threshold for noise upward to an unhealthy level. As with other forms of air pollution, healthier noise levels are more likely to result from enforcement of official standards rather than merely relying on the subjective experiences of individual residents exposed to it.
Similarly, Gotra said he was open to measuring noise on an ongoing basis to produce actionable data, noting that the Noise Project “has demonstrated the value of ongoing measurement,” and did so “because the city hasn’t — which tells me there’s a gap that needs to be filled. The question is whether that’s best done by government, community organizations, or a partnership between the two. I believe data should drive policy, and if ongoing measurement helps us understand the problem better and develop more effective solutions, it’s worth pursuing. I want data used for problem-solving, not just for generating reports.” Preach, brother!
He is also open to issuing annual reports on noise levels in RI municipalities, specific state policies and actions to reduce noise, and the measurable results of those efforts, but wants to focus on outcomes that matter to residents rather than government-activity metrics. “I want the report to measure whether we’re actually making life better for the people affected — not just whether government is busy.”
“That said, transparency is important, and residents have a right to know what their government is doing and whether it’s working. So I’m open to regular reporting, but want the metrics to be about people, not process.” Again, public satisfaction is an important but not exclusive metric: Residents may applaud an overnight noise level of 55 decibels, when 45 dB is what is actually required to protect their health.
Not surprisingly, he said he would request and spend money to educate RI residents on noise-
related issues, as the state currently spends to promote public understanding of other policy issues. “Education is exactly where I believe we should focus. Most residents are unaware of the health effects of excessive noise, and many don’t know what the law actually prohibits. Education is the foundation of any meaningful noise-reduction strategy. When people understand the harm noise causes — to their neighbors, to children, to public health — it changes behavior more effectively than enforcement alone.”
In response to a question about issuing an executive order requiring the RI Department of Education to include the adverse health effects of noise in state curricula for grade levels that have health-related education, he said he agrees with the outcome — “children should learn about the health effects of noise, particularly because pre-adolescent children are among the most vulnerable to its effects. If we are teaching kids about nutrition, exercise, and substance abuse in health class, noise health belongs in the curriculum too” — but that it should be done through the legislature, not as a temporary directive.
Gotra said he is familiar with the Rhode Island laws that regulate excessive noise, specifically citing RI General Law 11-45.1-2 (Violations of acceptable noise levels), and referencing state laws governing vehicle-inspection standards, fireworks, and commercial licensing. “The problem isn’t a lack of laws,” he said, “it’s that the existing laws aren’t being consistently enforced, and residents don’t feel like anyone is listening when they report violations.” That’s as clear a statement of the issue as we’ve ever made, but we’re not sure how it comports with his view of enforcement as a means of deterring noise violations.
In ranking the noise sources he would prioritize as governor, he did so in the exact order in which they were listed in the question — vehicle noise (modified mufflers and over-amplified audio systems on public roads / highways) and commercial sources (RI-licensed bars / clubs / restaurants / other businesses) were his highest priorities, and RI employee or contractor use of gas-fueled leafblowers on state property and state-college students in dorms or off-campus housing were lowest. So hopefully his Department of Business Regulation wouldn’t reflexively favor venue owners over residents’ health.
He explained that he prioritized sources that affect the most residents and can be addressed through education and collaboration with existing agencies. “Vehicle noise and over-amplified audio systems are the most prevalent sources cited by residents and voters I’ve spoken with. Commercial noise and fireworks are significant quality-of-life issues in specific neighborhoods.” He said he ranked enforcement of the general RI noise law lower “not because it’s unimportant, but because education and collaboration will be more effective in the long-term than a purely enforcement-driven approach.”
In response to a multiple-choice question on ensuring enforcement of noise limits, he said he “absolutely” supports collaboration between RI agencies and community organizations, asserting that “the Noise Project and similar groups have done more to document the issue than any state agency. We need their data and community connections. Government should be working with these organizations, not apart from them.” We certainly agree with that last sentence. The RI government does very little about noise.
As he did previously, Gotra stressed a public-education campaign over increasing the tangible metrics of enforcement: “I believe educating the public about the health effects of noise and existing laws will change behavior more sustainably than just issuing citations.” The number of citations “tells you about government activity; a satisfaction survey tells you whether life is actually getting better for residents.” We don’t see this as requiring an ‘either / or’ framework — the state can clearly do both concurrently.
He said he is open to exploring technical means of enforcing noise limits, such as noise cameras, but “would want to understand the costs, effectiveness, and community reception before committing” to it. Likewise, he is also open to considering civilian enforcement of noise restrictions, “but would want to learn more about how it would work in practice and whether it’s the right approach for Rhode Island.”
Asked if he would direct the Attorney General (AG) to crack down on the sale and installation of modified mufflers (which have long been illegal to use under RI law, but remain rampant in the state), Gotra said the issue is better addressed by both the state and city police, who he asserts “have more power to enforce on the ground than the AG’s office does.”
“The fact that these mufflers are ‘rampant’ despite being illegal tells me there’s a gap between the law on the books and the law on the street. I would also work with the DMV to audit private inspection stations that are passing non-compliant vehicles. The solution isn’t a new directive from the AG — it’s making sure the agencies that already have enforcement power are actually using it.”
We think he missed the point about sale and installation of modified mufflers, both of which remain legal in RI despite their use being prohibited. This contradiction is where the Attorney General needs to issue a policy directive that designates the sale and installation as illegal inducements to violate the prohibition. That would discourage commercial vendors from enabling clear violations of state muffler regulations.
Finally, in response to a question about replacing the heads of the RI State Police, DMV, DEM, RIDOH, or Dept. of Business Regulation, Gotra said he hasn’t formally evaluated any of them, but “accountability is one of my core values, and I hold myself and others accountable for our actions.” He said personnel decisions require a thorough analysis of “performance, alignment with goals, and the needs of the organization,” adding that “If agency leaders are not delivering for the people they serve, I will make changes.”
On the basis of his responses to our survey of Rhode Island gubernatorial candidates, the Noise Project endorses independent Jay Gotra for governor in the Nov. 3, 2026, general election. We obviously don’t think he can win (or that he’s even qualified). But his perspective on noise merits voters’ attention — especially in the absence of any real RI noise policy (or minimal awareness) from the current governor or his all-but-certain successor. It’s long past time for unhealthy noise to be on the state’s issue agenda.
______
* Sadly, this rings true. If any Smiley administration officials wish to take issue with it, they’ll have to detail what they actually did to address noise for the last four years — something we’ve tried to get them to do during that time. They’ve been laconic on the subject, to say the least.