The appellate court decision yesterday to place a hold on Mayor Bloomberg’s scheme to borrow his way out of the city’s budget troubles suggests it would be prudent for the mayor to start considering a Plan B. Mr. Bloomberg, with the complicity of the state Legislature, had sought to issue bonds that would leave taxpayers in 2034 still paying off the city’s debt from the 1970s fiscal crisis. Governor Pataki objected, and yesterday’s court’s decision — to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the bond sale until the constitutional questions can be sorted out — is a win for taxpayers across the state and a prudent protection for the individuals and institutions the mayor was going to try to hustle into lending the money against a plan that is under a legal cloud.

Mr. Bloomberg now faces a decision about what to do next. If the mayor follows his pattern, he’ll release a “contingency” plan full of scary scenarios about what the city would have to do to balance its budget if the bonds are not approved. Expect the mayor to talk about additional tax increases, or about cuts to popular programs like libraries or essential services like trash collection.

It’s a false choice. There’s an option besides borrowing, taxing, or slashing popular and essential services. That option is cutting waste and managing government more efficiently. The New York Sun outlined some of these steps last winter in a series of editorials called “Closing the Gap.” The mayor complained all around town and in Albany about these editorials. They pointed out, for instance, that city employees ride around town in a vast and expensive fleet of cars, when they could be riding the subway. They noted that New York City spends more on Medicaid than the state of California, which has about four times our population. The editorials observed that city buses cost more to run than those in Long Island or New Jersey because the routes aren’t let out for competitive bids to private companies. They mentioned that it costs the New York City Correction Department $170 a day to house a prisoner, while Cook County, Ill., does it for $43 a day and Los Angeles County does it for $49 a day.

Rather than borrowing, taxing, or threatening to cut essentials, Mr. Bloomberg could use the restraining order as an opening to launch a new drive for efficient, lean government. It’d be a step that, rather than saddling taxpayers with 30 years of debt, would leave them thanking the mayor for years in the future. There’s not much we’ve seen so far from Mr. Bloomberg that indicates he’s likely to pursue this approach. But there’s nothing like a restraining order — and the prospect of an election approaching — to concentrate the mind.