To the Editor:
We appreciated Herald senior staff writer Ciara Meyer鈥檚 Mar. 21 article regarding Mayor Smiley鈥檚 proposal to use noise cameras to address one of the most prevalent sources of excessive and unnecessary noise we hear about through our . of Providence residents鈥� survey submissions indicate they are exposed to vehicle noise, especially modified mufflers and over-amplified audio systems.
In Ms. Meyer鈥檚 article, a member of the Brown University School of Public Health faculty explained that exposure to excessive noise 鈥渘egatively (impacts) physical and mental health鈥� and that noise levels were higher in lower-income neighborhoods. Nonetheless, she opposes installing noise cameras in those areas due to the potential for higher levels of surveillance 鈥� despite the fact that these neighborhoods suffer the most from the adverse effects of high noise levels.
That seems contrary to the core idea of public health, while also privileging a small subset of people who deliberately produce unnecessary noise, degrading the health of others. Somehow, people who advocate for more equitable allocation of public resources to address community disparities seem instead to prefer an equal allocation when it comes to noise cameras.
But don鈥檛 the city residents most exposed to noise deserve equitable relief from it?
Providence should allocate its noise cameras equitably 鈥� i.e., in areas where vehicle noise is most prevalent or residents complain about it the most, in order to address its adverse health effects. It should not put them in quiet, low-traffic areas based on a perverse notion of 鈥渆quality鈥� or other claims that undermine public health.
John Wilner
Communications Coordinator,
The Providence Noise Project
