Horse Sense for De Blasio

Clop, clop, clop. Neigh.

The only conclusion to draw about Mayor Bill de Blasio is that his nine-months-old mayoralty could still go either way. In three years, he could be a success and on his way to a second term—or he could be a failure for new-wave progressivism. One indication of which path the mayor will take is whether he follows through with his pre-election promise to get rid of Central Park’s horse carriages.

De Blasio has made mistakes. But they fall into the category of “things that could make his life miserable in the future if he’s unlucky, incompetent, and dumb,” not “things that mark him off as an irrevocably bad mayor now.”

Take crime—the mayor’s No. 1 job.

It’s worrisome that de Blasio has embraced federal oversight of the NYPD. And it is reasonable to fret that the fewer stops, questions and frisks the NYPD do, the fewer guns police officers will catch—and the fewer violent crimes officers will prevent.

Still, though, the only number that counts is the body count—and murders are down. With 199 murders through late August, the city has seen a 13.1 percent decline in killings— remarkable, considering that New York saw a record-low year last year, too. Yes, shootings are up—but nothing beyond a normal year-to-year fluctuation. They’re still down 20 percent in two years. You can bet that if murders were up, the critics would be screaming—well, bloody murder.

Second, there’s the budget. De Blasio “balanced” his first budget by kicking billions of dollars’ worth of retroactive raises for teachers into the future. Terrible, terrible fiscal policy. But if Wall Street continues to do well, nobody will notice for a long time. There’s a sporting chance de Blasio will be able to run out the clock on this one before re-election. And even if Wall Street craters, it’s doubtful the average voter will have the time and energy to figure out that what de Blasio did back in 2014 matters a lot in 2016 or 2017.

Third, there’s pre-K. The first day of school resembled the evacuation of Dunkirk. The idea was to get any 4-year-old into any rickety classroom, no matter what the future cost in fraud from unvetted financial contracts, among other risks. Yet the mayor said he’d launch pre-K, and he did it. Nobody remembers now his fight with the governor over how to pay, either.

Last, there’s de Blasio’s “Vision Zero” plan to cut traffic deaths and improve life for pedestrians and bicyclists. As with crime, worrisome signs lurk. Will the mayor stand up to powerful interests who don’t want their parking spaces taken away for Citi Bike expansion? (Fewer bikes mean more speeding cars.) Will he be able to protect funding for street redesigns— when social services advocates and public sector unions would rather see finite money elsewhere? And will the mayor make his NYPD take traffic violence seriously?

All solid concerns. But pedestrian deaths, like murders, are down.

There is a piece of unfinished business, though, that could trip de Blasio up politically and practically—and right now: the horse carriages.

During the 2013 primary season, de Blasio said that the first thing he’d do as mayor would be to ban the horse carriages. Yet the horses and the 300 families they help employ are still plying their trade around Central Park.

In this case, failure to keep a promise (so far) is a good thing. There’s no policy reason to get rid of the horse carriages. Drivers and animals live good lives. Nor is there a political reason: The latest Quinnipiac poll shows New Yorkers want to keep the horses, 61 to 25 percent.

Nor is there a special interest reason. Sure, he’ll anger the tiny core of anti-horse activists if he leaves the horses alone. But the horses have the Teamsters and the Working Families Party.

Does de Blasio want to cap off a “so far, so good” year with a fight that makes no sense from any angle—and on a topic that the public can grasp in the here and now?

Clop, clop, clop. Here’s betting the horses will still be helping people get engaged next Valentine’s Day.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.