The horse ban that almost was

Enforcement.

Without it, a law is as useless as a car without brakes.

That’s how we got 10 million+ illegal immigrants in this country, and explains why the number of moving violations written to motorists in Philadelphia has fallen 75% in the last decade.

A lack of enforcement.

It’s also apparent and disheartening to Janet White, a founder of the Philly Carriage Ban Task Force, and an activist who has spent more than a decade in a (finally!) successful campaign to ban horse-drawn carriages from Philadelphia. A bill passed  on June 11 on the grounds that the carriage  work is dangerous to both civilians and horses, and stressful to the horses.

White began with street protests in 2015, then formalized her advocacy by founding Carriage Horse Freedom in 2017.

Many cities around the country (and abroad)  have banned horse-drawn carriages, as many earlier had banned circuses with animal acts. 

In tandem with her efforts to get horses off the street, White pushed for replacing them with colorful electrical cars as replacements, but that falls outside today’s focus. I had written about it earlier. 

The original bill banned all horse-drawn carriages, but the city’s Law Department felt that was too broad, that it could be challenged on First Amendment grounds by, say, the Amish who use nothing but horse-drawn vehicles, plus the small number of recreational horse owners who use carriages, such as the type you can see on this video.

As to the concerns of the Law Department, Penn law professor Penny Ellison saw it more as a procedural error  — a mistake in titling.

The ordinance was titled to “restrict the operation of carriage horse business” and “was limited to businesses.”

A ban on all activity is broader than the title advertises “and the Law Department takes the position that a bill can’t be amended beyond the scope of its title,” and altering the title would have put the entire bill back to Square One, says Ellison.

The amended ordinance does ban commercial horse-carriages but also tightly restricts non-commercial horse-drawn vehicle use, requiring licensing, annual veterinary exams, posted health certificates, visible horse ID numbers and limits on working hours.

That’s what the ordinance says, and violations can cost $1,000 per incident.

But not long after the bill was enacted, Budweiser’s Clydesdales pulled a beer wagon down South Street in a promotional stunt, and it was allowed, to White’s dismay. 

The task force was launched “to  inform the community, educate the police, and hold agencies accountable for enforcing Animal Welfare laws,” White tells me. “We’re just trying to enforce the ban. Or amend the ban so that these carriages are banned, are not allowed.”

With the elimination of the large number of commercial horse-drawn carriages, White has won 90% of the battle. That’s not good enough.

The law is not being enforced, she says. “The work doesn’t end with passage. Enforcement is the next battle.”

Who is responsible for enforcement?

The Philadelphia Police Department, Licenses & Inspections, and ACCT Philly, the city’s animal shelter. It’s never a good thing when three unrelated entities share responsibility. When everyone’s in charge, no one’s in charge. 

White says that Lt. Geoffrey Strubinger had spoken about confusion over enforcement at a community meeting. I emailed him, and he deferred comment to the public affairs unit, which is the usual policy. On Monday, August 31, I asked the Philadelphia Police Department if there was any confusion about the ban, and the lack of enforcement.

I followed up with a second request Thursday, Sept. 3, but received no reply.

Councilman Mark Squilla introduced the legislation after studying the issue for a long time.

“There is no violations to enforce,” he tells me.  “How do you know there is no enforcement?”

How I know, is the videotape taken on South Street after the bill was enacted that shows people in a horse-drawn carriage, not to mention horses on the sidewalk, which is a violation.

ACCT Philly Executive Director Sarah Barnett confesses to being a little confused about the law (not to mention expanding her responsibility without added funding).

She offers the Budweiser promotion as falling into a gray area. “They were basically just showing off their horses,” they were not charging money for anything.

“They are allowed to do that with licenses, so they got the license,” she says.

“That wasn’t a scenario we had foreseen,” she says, so now she is meeting with the city to gain clarity.

That’s a good idea, and it suggests the city should sit down with all the stakeholders and come up with a Solomonic solution.