Is public cost of moving city horse stables worth it?

Over 120 years ago, New York found itself embroiled in a controversy over the horse and carriage industry far more significant than the one we face today. Unlike now, the problem was real, dangerous and literally wafted in the faces of all New Yorkers. Over one thousand tons of manure each day caused pungent odors and filthy streets in our Gilded Age city.

The manure problem was not solved by a political deal. The real savior was the advent of electricity and the automobile. Sadly now, in true hipster irony, the electric car was briefly feted but failed to live up to its historic reputation of mothballing the horse carriage industry.

Instead, the public is now faced with bearing the cost of a political deal that fails to truly satisfy either side of the horse carriage debate. An argument that, in and of itself, is one which few New Yorkers see how it will have any appreciable effect on their lives.

Let me be clear, I don’t have a horse in this race. Our priority should be to preserve jobs, but I am neither a patron of nostalgic horse rides, nor a card-carrying member of PETA. I am one of the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers who simply can’t seem to understand why all this political capital has been spent on a tourist novelty few of us ever encounter.

The details that have emerged on the horse carriage deal are as follows: 220 animals would be moved out of their West Side stables. One-third or so would be kept in service and given accommodation in a new publicly funded, but private stable in Central Park. It is unclear if all of the drivers will remain employed.

This deal is problematic in that it does not satisfy the underlying causes for either side. If any driver loses their livelihood, we’ve failed on that front. Conversely, animal rights activists will not stop until there are no longer horses hauling around tourists on city streets, period.

It’s easy to argue that a hardline stance in either side’s favor would be better than this proposal. If the city were to continue having horse carriages, life would go on. Millions of travellers from Fresno to France would leave Central Park with their obligatory carriage horse photo and “I Love NY” t-shirt. NYCLASS and others would continue to protest, but this is, after all, New York, and the mayor and City Council cannot be expected to satisfy every interest group.

Here’s a novel concept – let’s just ban horse carriages altogether. In a city notorious for its prohibitions, horse carriages would simply join the list of things from trans-fats to credit checks that City Hall has restricted. Though I would not support this solution, it does absolve New Yorkers of what is perhaps the most problematic component of this agreement.

If the current iteration of the carriage deal is accepted, the public would be on the hook for the construction of the new stables for these privately owned horses, and face the potential loss of public open space in our most widely used park.

Parks Department projects don’t come cheaply, either. Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver has done an outstanding job streamlining his capital program, but a public bathroom in my district is still in the $10 million range. The public should know what the cost would be on a facility to house 75 horses. Factoring the architectural, historic and logistical requirements, we’re talking about a substantial sum of money. By comparison, the new Central Park police precinct costs roughly the same as the new 121st precinct on Staten Island, despite housing a fraction of the officers.

Not only is the price a concern, but the precedent it would set should raise eyebrows in a legislative body that has long had a habit of regulating business and banning items. If the Council and mayor elect to place a regulatory burden on an industry at some point in the future, will the affected trade organization also expect the taxpayers to pay the cost of complying? For example, could the New York Restaurant Association now expect that if they are vocal enough, the city would cover the cost of building smoking areas or pay for sushi chef’s rubber gloves?

Hopefully when the details of this agreement are finally released, the public will have an opportunity to weigh in. The taxpayers should wonder whether the cost of compromising is worth whatever the perceived benefit of changing this industry would be.

In the end, New Yorkers of today may have something in common with their 19th century ancestors: they may just want to avoid something that stinks.

Joe Borelli is a New York City councilman representing the 51st district on Staten Island.