Except, maybe, for one thing: he would have wanted to squeeze a few more miles out of his final ride. He would have liked one more trip through the Bronx, the borough he helped to transform at a time when it was a symbol of urban decay. One more trip to Staten Island, the home of so many of the cops he loved and who loved him. One more journey through the neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens that once were places of despair and now are thriving communities of hope.

Ed Koch inherited a city that New Yorkers under the age of 40 can hardly imagine. The New York of 1977, the year of Mr. Koch’s election as mayor, was a city that had lost heart. For the first time in its storied history, young people fled to make their fortunes elsewhere. The glamour was gone; in its place was a threadbare city of faded glory.

And then along came Ed Koch, this tall, screechy-voiced congressman barely known beyond his Upper East Side congressional district. It is hard to believe now, but there was a time when Ed Koch was an obscure pol, at least outside of reform Democratic circles. He was not supposed to win the Democratic mayoral primary in 1977, not against his better-known foes—Bella Abzug, Herman Badillo, Percy Sutton and a relative newcomer named Mario Cuomo. But win he did.

Over the next 12 memorable years, Ed Koch dominated the city as no other mayor had since Fiorello LaGuardia. He restored the public’s trust in its leaders at a time when the city seemed ungovernable and in decline.

The great achievements of the last 20 years—historic drops in crime, education reform, renewed economic vigor—took place after Mr. Koch left office. But he surely set the stage for the city’s renewed vitality under Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg. He said as much in an interview with The Observer, days before he entered the hospital for the last time. “I’m proud of what I did,” he said. “I also believe that Giuliani, and particularly Mike Bloomberg, have made tremendous contributions to the city. I look upon what I did as laying the groundwork and the foundation on which they could build, and without what I did, they couldn’t have done what they did.”

Ed Koch restored New York’s spirit with enthusiasm, with chutzpah and with a welcome dose of simple common sense. He had no time for cant and dogma. He dispensed with the notion that business was somehow the enemy of the people, a notion that was popular in certain sections of his home borough. He understood that New Yorkers were frightened—by crime, by hopelessness, by decline. It was his job to find solutions that would make the city believe in itself again. By the time he left office, the notion of New York as an ungovernable city seemed quaint, a leftover from the 1970s.

Ed Koch was passionate about New York and made others passionate as well. Similarly, he was passionate about Israel and was able to communicate that passion to Jews and gentiles alike. It was no coincidence of history that Cardinal John O’Connor, the city’s leading Roman Catholic during a portion of his tenure in City Hall, also happened to be a steadfast friend of Israel and the Jewish people.

Edward Irving Koch was one of a kind. This year’s mayoral candidates would do well to embrace his legacy—and his passion—for New York, New York.

What, you didn’t think these things happened in 2013? Guess again.

Thomas Lopez-Pierre is one of several candidates hoping to represent the Seventh Council District in Manhattan, which runs from the Upper West Side to Washington Heights. He contends that local district leader Mark Levine should not be elected because he is, in Mr. Lopez-Pierre’s words, a “white-Jewish candidate.” As The Observer reports this week, Mr. Lopez-Pierre sent a highly offensive email to an African-American supporter of Mr. Levine, using the N-word repeatedly.

To their credit, several public officials, including state Senator Adriano Espaillat, have condemned Mr. Lopez-Pierre’s offensive language, while several other politicians uptown have demanded that all candidates avoid attacks based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

What’s astonishing is that such an admonition seems necessary—and in Manhattan, no less.

Perhaps it’s best simply to ignore Mr. Lopez-Pierre. He will attract the support of no self-respecting public or party official, and very likely will suffer an ignominious defeat later this year.

But one thing is certain: he will get votes. Hopefully not many of them, but he won’t be shut out, either.

That means that there are voters in the district who either agree with Mr. Lopez-Pierre or simply don’t care.

And that’s troubling.

Take, for example, the mayor’s recent criticism of the United Federation of Teachers, that stalwart obstacle to genuine reform in the city’s public schools. During the course of a soliloquy devoted to the importance of teacher evaluations—a process the UFT fears and opposes—the mayor suggested that the union’s leadership is out of touch with its rank and file.

That assertion may or may not be valid, but it surely is a point worth considering. After all, as the mayor noted, other institutions—like Congress, or private companies—often suffer from the same sort of disconnect between leadership and everybody else.

So far so good, but then the mayor went on to note that many members of the National Rifle Association disagree with the hard-line views of the group’s leaders. “The NRA is another place where the membership, if you do the polling, doesn’t agree with the leadership,” the mayor said.

A superficial analysis of the mayor’s words made it seem as though he was comparing the UFT to the NRA. And the UFT was quick to summon the moral outrage that is often so absent in discussions of poor-performing schools and lousy teachers. Michael Mulgrew, the UFT’s president, called the mayor’s statement “completely inappropriate.” But it was his predecessor, Randi Weingarten, now the head of the national teachers’ union, who led the rallying cry. She noted that two members of the American Federation of Teachers were among the casualties in Newtown, Conn. The mayor’s comments, she said, were “incendiary and insensitive.”

Please. Mr. Bloomberg certainly was not suggesting that the UFT and the NRA are kindred spirits. He said nothing that diminished the awful crime in Newtown. Mr. Bloomberg’s phrasing could have been more artful, but Ms. Weingarten’s comments were anything but dignified and restrained.

Mr. Bloomberg’s larger point, once you clear away the NRA clutter, is well-taken. Institutions from the presidency to private corporations to large labor unions all have shown that they have grown out of touch with everyday life. The UFT has fought the mayor on any number of issues over the last decade, blocking common-sense reforms like merit pay and insisting on out-of-date work rules. Are those the priorities of members, or of their leaders? It’s a fair question to ask. And the mayor was right to ask it.

Regrettably, nobody should be surprised when the U.N. intervenes in Middle Eastern politics in a way that either insults or actually hurts Israelis. Even still, the General Assembly’s decision to upgrade the status of the nonexistent nation of Palestine to that of nonmember observer is particularly reprehensible. One hundred thirty-eight nation-states checked their consciences at the door (their usual practice) and voted to, in essence, reward the Palestinians for their reprehensible behavior and murderous tactics.

One Palestinian faction, Hamas, marked the occasion not by celebrating but by denouncing Mahmoud Abbas’s “victory speech” after the vote. Why? Because Mr. Abbas implicitly recognized the state of Israel. “We do not recognize Israel, nor the partition of Palestine, and Israel has no right in Palestine,” a Hamas spokesman said. What noble sentiments.

Israel reacted in the only way it could—with magnificent disdain. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a salient but ignored point about the speeches and celebrations that marked the U.N. vote. “The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against ... the citizens of Israel,” Mr. Netanyahu correctly noted of Mr. Abbas’s speech on the day of the vote.

It’s entirely possible that the cheering delegates in the General Assembly hall didn’t notice Mr. Abbas’s poisonous rhetoric because, well, they’ve heard it before. Many times.

Words and actions have consequences. Palestinian diplomats immediately seized on the vote as justification for their venomous attitudes toward Israel. Life would not be the same for Palestinians, insisted one of the Palestinian negotiators. “Palestine will become a country under occupation.”

And that, in a nutshell, explains why this vote was so damaging, so destructive, and so counterproductive. Palestinians can now tell themselves that the world is on their side, that the General Assembly shares their belief that Palestinian misery and poverty can be blamed not on failed Palestinian leaders, but on Israel. When in doubt, blame the Jews.

As the Palestinians seek further advantage at the U.N., it will be incumbent on Washington to make sure that there are further consequences for this odious vote. If the Palestinians seek membership in one or more of the U.N.’s various agencies, as seems likely, Washington and its allies need to pull every penny of financing from those agencies until Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza recognize Israel and commit to a two-state solution.

The vote was shameful. The consequences should be profound.

That’s a lot of money, even for Washington. Mr. Cuomo is well aware that Congress is not in a giving mood these days, not with the fiscal cliff looming and even Democrats talking about the need to reduce federal spending. And let’s not forget that there are elements in Congress who assume that 99 cents of every dollar sent to New York is wasted by grasping politicians, greedy bureaucrats and loafers looking for a handout.

Here’s the good news: Mr. Cuomo has cultivated a good relationship with New York Republicans, especially Long Island’s Peter King, and those Republicans will be able to talk to their colleagues from the Sun Belt not known for their sympathy for blue-state problems. Mr. Cuomo himself said he would be happy to meet personally with Speaker John Boehner if it becomes necessary.

There’s more good news: Mr. Cuomo is not simply asking for money to fix what’s broken—although that’s important. He has also included a request for $9 billion for projects designed for the next storm of the century—projects designed to limit the sort of damage that Sandy left in her wake.

It is critical, of course, to make sure that all of those who suffered losses receive the aid they need and deserve. It’s important to make all necessary repairs to our infrastructure.

But moving ahead, New York has to assume that Sandy is the new normal, and must act and plan accordingly. We learned a month ago that our 19th- and 20th-century infrastructure is terribly vulnerable to 21st-century weather patterns.

It clearly is not too early to think about next year’s storms—and those that will follow.

If, however, the Democrats win the seat, control of the Legislature’s upper house could change hands—a result that could be disastrous for sane, cooperative policy-making in Albany. It would put the spotlight on a four-member independent caucus of Democrats who could put principle ahead of party by supporting the Republican leader, Dean Skelos.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and all New Yorkers who are tired of politics as usual in Albany, should be rooting for Mr. Amedore in Ulster County. Outright Republican control of the Senate would prevent the spectacle of both parties bidding for the support of the independent Democrats—which wouldn’t do much to inspire confidence in how Albany does its business.

Still, if that’s what it takes, then so be it. Neither the governor’s agenda nor the public good would be served by a return to Democratic control of the Senate. When Democrats under Brooklyn Senator John Sampson finally won control of the chamber in the 2008 election, they plunged Albany into a series of scandals and ethics violations that, in some ways, helped lead to Mr. Cuomo’s election in 2010 as a reformer—despite, of course, his long presence as a public figure in state politics.

Things hit rock bottom when the contract to convert Aqueduct Racetrack into a combined track-casino had to be rebid after it was revealed that political insiders tried to rig the process so that Queens power brokers were on the inside. The Aqueduct mess served as the Democratic Senate leadership’s legacy—and it remains a cautionary tale as this leadership once again hangs in the balance.

Mr. Cuomo has proved to be an effective deal-maker and even a gentle persuader—it was his efforts, remember, that persuaded a handful of Republicans to support marriage equality last year. He has a stake in the leadership race, for if he wants to continue to reform state government, he’ll need a competent, willing partner. And, frankly, he won’t find one among the Democratic leaders in the Senate.

For Hamas, this was victory. Its sympathizers fired their weapons into the air and carried on as though the Hamas-Israel truce were the second coming of V-E Day. It was more than bizarre. It was sad. Tragically sad.

And yet, much of the world’s media seemed to swallow this nonsense whole. Few dared to point out that the devastation in Gaza looked very much like a crushing defeat.

But that’s how it goes in this corner of the world. Terrorists launch an appalling attack on civilians, and the world rises to condemn Israel’s response. Israel fights back with selected and judicious outrage, and its enemies are allowed to proclaim victory amid the ruins of their bomb factories and training camps.

It is hard to know what to make of all of this, except to say that Israel clearly will never win the hearts and minds of the world’s media, and so should continue to defend itself without feeling obliged to keep one eye on public opinion.

There will be more missiles—count on it. Hezbollah, the terrorist group based in Lebanon, already is talking big about unleashing its own missiles on Israeli cities. Apparently Hezbollah’s leaders would like a share of the glory that comes with attacking defenseless Israeli civilians. If they make such an attempt, they certainly will experience the same sort of victory that Hamas is enjoying at the moment.

If Israel cannot win over world opinion as it seeks to defend itself, its leaders ought to at least point out—repeatedly—that the missiles that were aimed at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were dispatched to the region by Iran. The madmen who run Iran are more than happy to have surrogates kill as many Jews as possible and then bear the brunt of Israel’s response. But Israel should make it clear that Iran has Israeli blood on its hands. And Israel does not stand by idly when Jews are targeted for extermination.

In the meantime, Hamas will continue to strut on the world stage and talk about its victory over mighty Israel. Sane people—and there are more than a few of them out there—should be able to recognize reality. Perhaps one day the people who die for Hamas’s bravado will understand the absurdity of it all, too.

They know that their states simply can’t afford to keep rebuilding after every storm, just as they know that there will be more storms in this new age of violent weather patterns.

But other kinds of changes are necessary, and they start from the bottom up. The residents of New York and New Jersey, especially those in low-lying areas, have to understand that government officials aren’t kidding when they order an evacuation. In the immortal words of the governor of New Jersey, they have to get the hell off the beach if they are told to do so.

Most New Yorkers and New Jerseyans did just that, and if you want to know why there weren’t more deaths associated on Sandy, give credit to those level-headed residents of New Dorp and Midland Beach on Staten Island, the Rockaways, the Battery and dozens of Jersey shore towns. They left when evacuations were ordered, and in the process, they may have saved their lives.

Some people, however, chose to ignore official warnings. Some may have been skeptical of the dire forecasts, some simply have decided that no government official was going to tell them what to do.

More than a thousand go-it-aloners on Staten Island had to be rescued, at no small risk to members of the New York Police Department who braved a storm surge and downed power lines to save the lives of those trapped by the storm. Eight others died in the Staten Island town of Midland Beach, a small, low-lying community of bungalows that would not have looked out of place in Breezy Point or Seaside Heights.

This simply can’t happen again. In the storm to come—and there surely will be another superstorm in the near future—even the toughest New Yorkers have to realize that they are no match for a storm surge. Evacuation orders are not requests, nor are they issued lightly. Government may not have the power to force people from their homes, but from now on, it must be made clear that those who remain behind are, in essence, on their own.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano addressed this very issue during a visit to Staten Island. “The issue of those who either can’t or won’t abide by [evacuation] orders, that is a question we have to address,” she said.

The first part of the question is easy—assist in the evacuation of those who can’t leave.

As for those who won’t abide by evacuation orders, they have to understand that their decision will have consequences.

This is the new reality. Most New Yorkers understand that. Those who don’t cannot and should not expect that first responders will continue to risk their lives because of somebody’s foolishness.

Not sure which season you like best? Well, The New York Times is putting their support behind Fall.

Ah, Fall. That season between summer's heat and winter's chill. Falling leaves and sweater weather and pumpkins all in a row. And October? Oh, October. The month of temperate chill, neither the still-muggy heat of September nor the rapidly shortening days and impending family holiday doom of November. 

If you have been noticing a wind that "tears the last leaves from the trees and quickens the ones that have already fallen, herding them upward until they seem to have a life of their own, hurling them into traffic," you are not alone.

The New York Times is on it. In a lyrically written editorial entitled "The Breath of Autumn," October can count on the support of the paper of record if there is ever a face off against the other 11 months.

The troublesome two. (NYU)

Following a cadre of strong editorials in favor of NYU's Greenwich Village expansion plan, the 800-pound gorilla has spoken. Its fur is purple and it is screaming down the protesters in favor of the project. The Times' editorial board favors almost every point in NYU's plan. It is a striking endorsement for a number of reasons, but first, what was written.

The Times says the project's critics have overreacted; the community board "too vehemently" rejected the plan; the faculty who does not like are, well, dumb; and then tacitly calls on Borough President Scott Stringer to support the proposal with few changes:

There are some criticisms that N.Y.U. should take seriously, including the scale of the two large triangular buildings. Scott Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, has proposed reductions in their design that would move far too much space outside of the site. But N.Y.U. should pay attention to worries that the structures will create walls to the streets on either side of the construction area. N.Y.U. is selling the project in part as a way to open what is already supposed to be an open space between the 1950s apartment buildings, but is not.

N.Y.U. has an obligation to make sure that space is truly public and does not become an internal courtyard walled off by four towers. The university has a habit of getting famous architects to produce famously unattractive buildings. This is not a moment to repeat that.

This is quite the reversal from Michael Kimmelman's daring proposal a week ago, which has already become a cause célèbres in the neighborhood. In it, Mr. Kimmelman called for a reduction in three of the four new buildings, including the elimination of the two Washington Square Park buildings.

The editorial is also a stern rebuke to Borough President Stringer. It was The Times on Friday the reported Mr. Stringer's concerns about the Washington Square Park towers, and now the editors seem to be saying "don't even go there."

And that is what makes the endorsement of The Times so important to NYU. Not only are its readers precisely the educated mobs graduating from and sending their children to the university, they are also the ones who might influence their elected officials on the land-use review of NYU. Oh, and not to mention be voting for Mr. Stringer in next year's mayoral election.

Looks like somebody's stuck between a rock and two towers.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC