Rule o flaw β part III
Make sure youβve read part I and part II.
The project of demolishing the building opposite my house has taken a new turn. As part of the deal between me and my neighbours and the contractor, Monday, November 18, was his deadline to finish the part of the job that required the use of the offensively loud pneumatic jackhammers. The contractor was also to pause work on Sunday (November 17), which he didnβt: the workers didnβt use the jackhammers but continued working with sledgehammers and the much simpler electric drills.
My neighbours and I also noticed the two tractors that powered the jackhammers were driven away on Sunday morning. We simply assumed the contractor had leased the equipment and was returning them for the day to avoid paying rent. However, the workers continued to demolish the building on Monday with sledgehammers and electric drills. (One of us went over but the contractor wasnβt on site.) The tractors didnβt return either.
The situation continued into Tuesday. At this point we began to wonder if the article in The Hindu might have had anything to do with it. Late last week, after weβd lodged out complaint with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), I reached out to one of my colleagues at The Hindu asking if they could help expedite the boardβs response. Apparently they did, and they also arranged for the noise complaints to be covered as a small item in the paper the next day (November 16).

It wasnβt implausible that the people who made the work noisy in the first place decided to take a step back at this point and revert to more peaceable methods. A user named βJosephβ also posted an encouraging comment on the article: βIf the TNPCB cannot take action on a complaint already received, then what is the drafted jurisprudence and responsibility of the TNPCB? Hope the lawmakers amend the defective law and permit the TNPCB to take suitable action against willful noise pollutors.β
But my neighbours and I also began to feel guilty: if that bigwig at the other end of the road didnβt allow the contractor to use an excavator and we didnβt want him to use pneumatic jackhammers, were we condemning the workers the contractor had hired to slowly, painstakingly demolish the building with sledgehammers and electric drills over several weeks?
Fortunately, Wednesday (November 20) dawned with good news for us as well as the workers: the contractor brought the excavator back. Unlikely though it may be, Iβm tempted to think the article in The Hindu also spooked the bigwig. The excavator is currently parked on the front side of the building and weβre all excited for it to bring what remains of the structure down in a day or two.