Rule o flaw — part II
Make sure you've read part I.
On November 15, I lodged a complaint of excessive noise with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), whereupon I received an update saying the complaint was pending with the district environment engineer. Later the same evening, someone from the TNPCB called to say he was at the demolition spot and making inquiries. He called back 10 minutes later to say he'd spoken to the contractor and that the contractor had promised to wrap up work with the jackhammers next week.
Funny thing is what the TNPCB caller had also said: that the contractor was caught between the guy (who'd chased the excavator away) and me, that I should empathise with the contractor and, "as a member of the public", come to a mutually convenient agreement with him — and not, as I'd expected, ensure that the contractor switched to using sound-proofed equipment or make sure that the guy's complaint drew further probing considering no other house in the neighbourhood was so rattled.
Before he cut the call, the TNPCB caller said two more interesting things. First, the TNPCB was currently dealing with a similar but also "strange" complaint centred on Raman Street where people had complained not about the obnoxiously loud machines in use at a demolition site but that the workers there were working past 10 pm when they shouldn't be. I wonder why this sounded "strange" to him. Second, he said if we wanted "more" action to be taken against the contractor, we'd have to approach the local body and the police, who may then contact the TNPCB for noise data and then decide whether and/or how to act on it.
I'm sharing all this here in case this is useful to readers faced with loud demolitions in their neighbourhoods.
