Community Board 2, which includes Greenwich Village, annually has among the most street fairs in the city — and receives the most street fair applications.

These events, when small and locally based — run by block associations and community groups — are great for bringing neighborhoods together. However, many of the longer, multi-block street fairs are run by large operators, with the same “cookie-cutter” offerings at each one — i.e., sausages, funnel cakes, tube socks, wallets, etc.

These fairs clog our streets. Sometimes multiple fairs are occurring in the same neighborhood simultaneously, snarling traffic. Residents who need to drive cars onto their block, say, to pick up an elderly family member or drop off groceries, can’t. Emergency vehicles are impacted. Merchants are put out since the fairs rob their foot traffic and block views to their stores.

In recent years, C.B. 2 has looked into whether the street fair applicants are legitimate and have any authentic local connection to justify their presence here.

A community board, though, lacks the power and time to probe each suspect organization. And the board’s opinion is advisory only. The deciding body, the city’s Street Activities Permit Office, doesn’t rigorously vet these groups — and that is precisely where the problem lies.

Further complicating matters, the city is now “bundling” several sponsoring groups together for individual street fairs. A number of street fairs in C.B. 2, for instance, are now co-sponsored by St. Stephen / Our Lady of the Scapular Church and Chapel, on E. 28th and E. 33rd Sts. — which, it also bears noting, are outside the Board 2 district.

As street fair applications recently came up for review, C.B. 2 recommended denial for several groups it deemed “bogus or non-indigenous organizations.”

Among these were the Stonewall Veterans’ Association (which, C.B. 2 charges, “is essentially one man and…provides no benefit to anyone else”), the International AIDS Prevention Initiative (which uses the fair’s funds to help, again, one man — but in L.A.! — travel abroad, plus had its 501c3 status revoked, C.B. 2 says), the Village Crosstown Trolley (which advocates for an Eighth St. light-rail system, but which, “in 17 years…has provided no appreciable value to the district,” in the board’s view), and the Independent Downtown Republican Club (for which C.B. 2 could find no proof of its existence). The board also rejected St. Scapular’s permit bid due its to having “NO relationship of any sort with C.B. 2.”

As Maury Schott, chairperson of the board’s Sidewalks & Street Activities Committee, noted, the city doesn’t require these groups to show where the money from the fairs goes. And, Schott admitted, despite his committee’s efforts to vet these applicants for fakes and lack of local connection, it’s unlikely the city will deny any of them permits, except maybe — just maybe — the guy out in L.A.

“SAPO hadn’t investigated any of these applicants in years,” Schott said. At least, he added, in a step forward, SAPO will now require applicants to prove 501c3 nonprofit status.

Meanwhile, Williamson Henderson, director of S.V.A., vowed he will again prevail over the Board 2 “haters,” who have backed denying his fair in years past, as well.

“We’re very indigenous,” he told The Villager. “It’s an outrageous accusation to make [that we’re not].” S.V.A. has an executive committee that meets monthly at the L.G.B.T. Center on W. 13th St., he said, plus a Web site with “over 5 million verified hits for 2012.”

Bottom line, C.B. 2 shouldn’t have to screen all these groups for legitimacy and local connection. Unfortunately, though, no one else is providing any help or oversight.

The movie — actually, reportedly two short films about bike-share in other countries — was to be accompanied by a presentation by two Department of Transportation officials who lead New York’s bike-share program, known as Citi Bike. But, like the plan for the movies, these D.O.T. officials have vanished, and unfortunately apparently may not attend the discussion tonight, Thurs., May 2, at P.S. 41, at 116 W. 11th St., starting at 6:30 p.m.

David Gruber, C.B. 2 chairperson, explained to us that the event’s change of format was made after the board’s office was “inundated with calls and concerns” from nearly 100 local residents about the size and placement of the new bike-share stations.

As a result, the venue was moved from an earlier N.Y.U. location with a 100-person capacity to the P.S. 41 auditorium, with space for 350 to 400 people.

Gruber, who will lead the forum, told us he’s perturbed that D.O.T. — as of our press time — was saying it would not send a representative to the meeting. So, Gruber will do his best to allow people to express their feelings, in hopes of reaching some solutions.

“It’s disappointing,” he told us late Wednesday afternoon. “As of right now, D.O.T.’s deciding not to come. I’m going to run the meeting — but I don’t have answers. I’m not D.O.T. Ask me the day after the meeting, and I may have answers.

“A lot of what we’re hearing is that people are O.K. with the bike-share program,” he explained, “but that they didn’t expect it to be this large or in these locations.”

In short, many folks feel blindsided by the long metallic strips of bike docks suddenly slapped down around the neighborhood.

“Certainly, people didn’t see the scale or the volume,” Gruber noted. “People are saying, ‘Can it be broken down into smaller units?’ ”

Clearly, the city is anticipating high demand for the new eco-friendly and affordable transportation alternative, and feels bike docks of a certain size are needed. We, for one, do eagerly look forward to using Citi Bike. Sure, there are issues to be ironed out — and, yes, some real safety concerns — but we’re hopeful it will be a great program.

And a lot of the bike stations actually do seem to be sited in good, appropriate spots. But, for example, in the case of bike stations bolted down in front of residential buildings, we certainly can understand people’s trepidation, to put it mildly.

“I get it, but it doesn’t have to be so many in one place,” Gruber said of the multi-bike stations, summing up many residents’ thinking.In short, he said of the reason for the forum, “People need to vent and they need to say what the problems are.”

Gruber has invited residents from neighboring Community Boards 3 and 4 to the forum, since similar concerns are shared across Downtown neighborhoods.

The main unease, he said, of bike-share is “where it starts to interfere with the flow of life. … In Europe, these bike-shares are integrated into the fabric of the city — not like these massive barricades.”

Again, we support bike-share. But many residents have concerns — many quite legitimate — about the siting and size of the bike stations. Thursday’s discussion hopefully will help steer us in the right direction to kick this program off on the right foot.

Let’s give bike-share a chance at least to start rolling. But D.O.T. must not hide from concerns about a program that will dramatically reshape — has already reshaped — our landscape.

The F.B.I. was denying reports that a suspect had been taken into custody. However, it was being widely reported that interest was focusing on a man who was captured on video dropping a black bag at the scene right before the explosions.

Hopefully, we will soon get to the bottom of this horrible crime. Three innocent lives were taken and many people — spectators and runners alike — suffered gruesome injuries. There were reportedly numerous amputations. The bombs were packed with nails and ball bearings — designed to maim, according to bomb experts.

The Daily News, in its editorial, noted that perhaps the second bomb was timed to go off slightly later so as to hit first-responders who were rushing to assist the wounded. How sick.

Monday’s attack was the worst incident of what clearly was an act of domestic terrorism since 9/11, nearly 12 years ago. It’s sad that we still must be on alert for these kind of cowardly, vicious, senseless attacks.

At the same time, it makes us appreciate even more the job that Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and other law enforcement have been doing to keep New York safe. We know we are a target, but thanks to a vigilant Police Department and other law enforcement agencies, we have been kept safe.

There have been some close calls, though, including, most notably, the car packed with explosives in Times Square that was caught in the nick of time.

Nevertheless, understandably, some Down-towners are taking the Boston bombing especially hard. Even if they didn’t know anyone personally involved in that incident, it’s brought the dread of 9/11 rushing back for them. Yet, thankfully, there weren’t any other incidents after Boston — the coordinated sort of attacks that the twisted terrorists delight in.

Security is clearly a major issue in the upcoming New York City mayoral election. Whoever is elected must not lose focus on efforts to combat terrorist threats.

One can only hope and pray that our world someday evolves to the point where we no longer bomb, maim and kill each other in this way — or any way. If this incident was somehow connected to any religion or religious cause, it is only the more depressing.

When will we, as a planet, as a species, move on past these ancient hatreds to a place of mutual respect and understanding — to live and let live? A multicultural, multiracial, religiously diverse city like New York offers the world the best example of an inspiring look at how we can all live in relative peace. Perhaps that, too, is why we are a target.

Despite our differences, we are all, at heart, the same.

But for now, we must focus on bringing the terrorists in this incident to justice. We must send the message that America — whether it be New York or now Boston — will not be victimized by hateful terrorist violence. Again, nothing justifies this kind of carnage.

The perpetrator or perpetrators must not get away.

Some things, however, remain constant, foremost among them, the demand for solidly reported local news. That’s why, even though daily newspapers are taking serious hits in circulation, community weeklies are continuing to thrive.

This past weekend, The Villager hauled in an impressive nine awards in the 2012 Better Newspaper Contest. Speaking to a well-rounded paper, we were recognized for excellence in a wide range of categories, from news coverage and feature story writing to arts coverage and photography, plus, of course, editorial cartoons by Ira Blutreich.

It was gratifying to see Jerry Tallmer win first place for Best Column. A founding editor of the Village Voice and later an all-purpose newspaperman for the New York Post, Tallmer, 92, has interviewed just about everyone and anyone of note in the last six or seven decades. His insightful columns artfully interweave history and current events and are always beautifully written. The award could not have been more well-deserved.

At the convention, as has been the case for the last several years, discussions among publishers, editors and reporters largely centered on the print vs. digital issue.

Yes, solely online news outlets are now an established part of the mix of how readers get their local news in New York City and elsewhere, and some of them do a good job. And yet, the largest of these outfits in New York has failed to turn a penny of profit three years after its startup. Beyond that, there are some fundamental differences between online news outlets, blogs, etc. and print newspapers. Whereas online reports tend to be shorter, “quick hit”-type pieces, weekly papers like The Villager and our sister papers at NYC Community Media tend to have longer, more informative articles that place stories firmly in context. We provide deeper coverage. We’ll look at more of the angles and nuances of an issue, flesh it out. We’ve been around and know our beat.

As a matter of fact, we’re proud to report that  this month marks The Villager’s 80th anniversary! We’re planning a special anniversary supplement that will appear later in the year.

Another of our strengths is that we have unique stories. Each week The Villager strives to bring you local news that you won’t find anywhere else. That’s one way to separate ourselves from the pack in an era of media homogeneity.

And print definitely continues to pack a punch. Our recent editorial “Landmark, then rezone,” advocating for the city to designate the South Village before residentially rezoning Hudson Square, was a big boost to the cause, according to Andrew Berman, director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. G.V.S.H.P. and a coalition of community groups also helped pressure the City Council and the administration by taking out two full-page print ads in The Villager. It definitely pays to advertise.

There’s no doubt, though, that there’s a two-track split in how news is being consumed. Younger readers are more apt to read news on their smartphones or tablets, while many older readers still prefer print. One can ask what this all means, in that online reports do tend to be shorter, less meaty. Is our collective attention span shrinking?

Some predict a coming clampdown of pay walls that will change how we think of free content on the Web. The Villager does of course have an active online presence, including Facebook and Twitter. The Villager’s online content is free and we’re not looking to ask readers to pay anytime soon. Basically, like the title of the Joe Strummer documentary “The Future Is Unwritten,” no one knows exactly what the news industry will look like in five years. All we know is that The Villager is still going strong — covering the best beat and the best neighborhoods around — and that we’ll continue to work hard “writing the future,” reporting on whatever the future holds.

Downtowners have coexisted with corporations running the Seaport mall for a few decades. There have been some good initiatives, and some great events, but the operators have never fully embraced the Lower Manhattan community.

The companies over the years have tried to make the area more attractive to residents, but have not yet succeeded.

There are malls all over the county, but what makes the Seaport special is its ties to early New York and the Fulton Fish Market, which did not leave all that long ago — and the South Street Seaport Museum with its historic ships decorating the harbor.

“It’s not just another mall on the waterfront,” is the way Catherine McVay Hughes, Community Board 1’s chairperson, put it.

Two weeks ago, the City Council voted to approve the Howard Hughes Corporation’s plan to redevelop the Pier 17 mall. There are clear, positive elements about the plan, but there is a lot to be concerned about too.

“Pier 17 and trust,” was the headline of our editorial one year ago, and the need to restore trust is much more pressing now.

The chief reason for that is the city Economic Development Corporation’s apparent decision to withhold important information from the public until after the Council vote.

Specifically, the unredacted portions of the letter of intent between the city and Hughes included the company’s intention to build a large apartment and hotel building near the pier.

The only defense we’ve heard for this contemptible decision to keep the public in the dark is essentially, “Big deal — everyone has known for years that there was a desire for big development.”

If everyone knew, what would have been the harm in releasing the full document?

General Growth Properties, Hughes’ predecessor, did make its development plans clear five years ago. Then it went bankrupt and reorganized as Howard Hughes Corp., so it was far from clear that anything had stayed the same.

There’s no question that if the full information had been made public earlier, it would have affected the debate at the very least, and perhaps even the outcome.

Clearly, the city and Hughes did not want to negotiate about anything other than Pier 17. We can’t help but wonder, though, if a tougher position would have won more.

And this would not have been the first time the city negotiated two land-use applications, known as ULURPs, simultaneously.

Councilmember Margaret Chin did win some concessions at Pier 17. One — like extending the leases of Pier 17 shops — was hard, but needlessly so. It’s just smart business to let the merchants sell through the busy summer season, before things close up for redevelopment. These stores were hard hit by Hurricane Sandy, which also should have made the decision easier to make.

We are also pleased to see that the agreement includes more public access on the roof of the new Pier 17, more boat mooring for the museum and two large, locally sourced food markets, with one expected to open next year.

The Council vote did put much more restrictive size limits on the New Market Building site, which is just outside the Seaport Historic District and which Hughes has an option on.

But with so little discussion about the zoning limit, we suspect those in the know have reason to expect an attempt to get approval to build bigger.

Hughes will have to go through the same review process regardless of whether it looks to build big or small.

It’s never too late to begin building trust. You do it by sharing your plans early and working with a community.

The candidates uniformly showed a detailed understanding of issues such as homeless youth, AIDS housing inequities, the city’s faltering commitment to H.I.V. prevention, the state ban on gestational surrogacy contracts, and the spike in potentially deadly meningitis cases among gay and bisexual men. They also acknowledged that abuse in the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices is a queer issue –– whether it involves the targeting of transgender women and L.G.B.T. youth of color or the false arrests of gay men in video stores.

In a forum of this sort, the greatest attention inevitably focuses on the purported frontrunner –– in this case, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The fact that a vocal minority within the L.G.B.T. community has, in recent years, targeted the woman who could become the city’s first openly lesbian or gay mayor for harsh criticism gave this event particular political resonance. The media was watching to see if she would stumble on her home court.

To be sure, some of the criticisms Quinn’s opponents leveled at her –– particularly regarding her refusal to endorse paid sick leave legislation now pending in the City Council –– struck a chord with many audience members. Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and former City Comptroller Bill Thompson proved particularly adept at eliciting crowd encouragement for their volleys against the speaker.

That said, it is also true that Quinn earned the warmest and most enthusiastic applause from the audience at the conclusion of her opening and closing statements.

It actually appeared that some audience members both applauded the Council speaker and then jumped in to second certain criticisms thrown her way.

Quinn is clearly a potentially history-making figure. At the same time, many progressives who have known her over the past two decades are befuddled by a posture on sick leave, among other issues, that they view as fundamentally at odds with her political roots.

In the current political season, that issue is something of a proxy for other nagging doubts that have emerged over the seven years of her speakership –– misgivings that coalesced most dramatically when she offered Mayor Bloomberg indispensible Council support for his efforts to run for a third term in 2009.

At last week’s forum, she was at pains to emphasize that paid sick leave is not a question of if — it’s a question of when. The economy, in Quinn’s view, is simply too soft right now to impose a new government mandate whose effect would be felt primarily by small businesses.

The speaker mentioned a few measures that could be used to judge when the time is right –– the unemployment rate, the trend line in business closures –– but she is clearly not yet ready to commit to a specific economic trigger. She may find, as the campaign progresses, that she needs to firm up her thinking and her resolve on this question.

Among the other candidates, de Blasio and Thompson emerged at last week’s forum as the most plausible alternatives, and former Councilmember Sal Albanese, in the role of a truth-teller, burst the many bubbles created by pretty words. Comptroller John Liu arrived a half hour late and unfortunately never seemed to find his footing.

This editorial is reprinted from a slightly longer version that first ran in Gay City News.

On March 26, the federal lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act filed by Village resident Edie Windsor — assessed more than $360,000 in federal estate taxes after her spouse Thea Spyer died in 2009 — will be heard. Windsor’s attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union will be opposed by Paul Clement, a private attorney representing the so-called Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of the Representatives, which is controlled by Republican Speaker John Boehner. BLAG stepped into the DOMA litigation in 2011 after the Justice Department determined the 1996 law is unconstitutional.

It was, in fact, the Obama administration that asked the high court to take up the case to settle the question of DOMA’s constitutionality. The Justice Department filed a brief in the case, arguing that laws treating gay and lesbian people differently should be subjected to the most searching form of judicial scrutiny — one that requires a showing of a compelling public purpose served, in narrowly tailored fashion, by the distinction. Viewed in that light, D.O.J. argues, DOMA cannot possibly survive. BLAG’s argument that the purpose of marriage is to promote responsible procreation by heterosexuals, the administration asserts, does not even meet minimal judicial standards of being rational.

Arguments against DOMA may find a receptive ear among some of the court’s conservatives. The law was the federal government’s first significant legislative incursion in history into regulating marriage, something traditionally reserved for the states — so long (like in the case of the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling on interracial marriage) as minimal federal constitutional guarantees are protected.

Should the high court, or a few conservatives on it, conclude the federal government overreached in enacting DOMA, the victory should go to Windsor. Liberals on the court are likely to agree with the A.C.L.U.’s assertion that even the most lenient scrutiny of the 1996 law would find no constitutionally valid reason for its enactment.

The issue of what level of scrutiny federal courts apply to sexual-orientation discrimination claims may have greater impact on the resolution of the other marriage equality case — the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) challenge to California’s Proposition 8. At the district court, AFER won a sweeping victory that found that same-sex couples have a federal constitutional right to marry.

The Supreme Court could conceivably uphold that finding even while applying the most lenient form of review. In 1996, it struck down a Colorado voter initiative that denied gay and lesbian couples the right to enact nondiscrimination laws. Such a victory for AFER would restore marriage equality to California without confronting the bigger questions of a federal constitutional right to marriage.

AFER, of course, is aiming higher, with arguments that could provoke a bigger victory. The court might conclude that any state that gives couples all the rights and benefits of marriage, but denies them access to marriage itself — as California with its existing domestic partnership law and the seven other domestic partnership / civil union states do — is acting unconstitutionally.

Or the court could wipe the whole issue off the table by embracing the sort of sweeping ruling AFER won at the district court.

The arguments will be over on March 27, but the suspense could last through the end of June. Come what may, this is certainly among the most profound moments in the history of L.G.B.T. rights in America.

This editorial is reprinted from Gay City News, a sister publication of The Villager and East Villager.

His death on Feb. 1 at age 88 came as a shock — even though he had been very publicly preparing for it for years.

Long after leaving office, and in fact until the very end, he remained an avuncular political icon who was always available for a quote and relished the spotlight. His endorsed carried clout and was coveted. He regularly e-mailed out his opinion pieces on a myriad of issues and  — after we dropped him as a movie reviewer a few years ago — his movie critiques.

Two years ago, proving he was still relevant and could have a profound political impact, he launched the New York Uprising campaign, pushing for campaign finance reform, independent redistricting and ethics reform in Albany. He was successful on two out of three, though politicians — fearful of losing their gerrymandered seats — ultimately refused to weaken their hold on redistricting.

Most will say that Koch leaves a mixed legacy. Most important on the pro side, he pulled New York City out of the 1970s fiscal crisis, and also poured billions of dollars into the creation of middle-class housing — on a scale no one has done either before or after him.

Koch also reformed the judicial selection process so that it became based on merit rather than patronage. This last initiative stemmed from his political roots, which were in Greenwich Village, where he was an early, leading member of the Village Independent Democrats club. V.I.D. was a Reform Democratic club, and judicial reform was part of its platform.

Running with Carol Greitzer, Koch went on to topple Tammany District Leader Carmine De Sapio, a political kingmaker and machine boss known for selling judicial nominations. From there, Koch rose to city councilmember, congressmember and finally a three-term mayor of New York City. He continued to live in Greenwich Village as mayor — it was said because he valued his privacy. Some said it was because Koch was gay and didn’t want his social life exposed.

This leads to part of Koch’s legacy that remains controversial: his failure to respond quickly and assertively to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. AIDS activists charged that his lack of action resulted in thousands of deaths. That Koch was gay, they claimed, only served to heighten the outrage.

It was Koch’s choice to keep his sexuality private, though it definitely would have helped gays had he come out.

Koch also came under heavy criticism for closing Sydenham Hospital in Harlem, an action he later said he regretted having taken. In addition, in terms of race relations in New York City, he unfortunately became a polarizing figure, and was dubbed racist by black activists. However, those who knew him over his political career contend that Koch wasn’t racist, but more of an opportunist: He saw that he had lost support in the Village, on the Upper West Side and Harlem as he had moved to the center, and so realized his base was now the boroughs. He used race as a way to maintain his power, the thinking goes. That he was famously pugnacious didn’t help race relations either. But his level of racial insensitivity or antagonism never reached the level of Rudy Giuliani.

He crossed party lines often, such as to support the likes of George W. Bush and Bob Turner. His old club, V.I.D., parted ways with him when they endorsed the more liberal Mario Cuomo over him for governor.

Koch was a staunch defender of Israel and a vigilant monitor of anti-Semitism around the globe.

For all of his imperfections, Ed Koch was always New York’s number one cheerleader.

Whatever you think of him, one thing’s for sure, there will never quite be another mayor like Ed Koch.

The new regulations represent a multipronged approach to curbing gun violence. Under the package of laws, the definition of banned assault weapons is immediately expanded to include semi-automatics with one military-style feature. Also, owners of what is believed to be 1 million previously legal semiautomatic guns now must register them with the police. In addition, a new limit is imposed on ammunition clips — down to seven bullets from the previous cap of 10. Under the new regulations, New York is now the first state to require background checks to purchase bullets. And a statewide gun registration database will be created. Police will now get automatic alerts of high-volume buys of ammo. Mental health professionals are now required to report if they think a patient could be a threat. Also under the new law, police are now empowered to confiscate any firearm owned by a dangerous patient. Kendra’s Law — which permits judges to order mentally ill patients to receive treatment on an outpatient basis — will be expanded. Finally, anyone who kills a first responder will now get a mandatory life sentence without parole.

“We are fighting back,” Cuomo said at the signing of the new restrictions.

At last, thanks to Cuomo and the New York State Legislature, we’re starting to see the chokehold of the N.R.A. around our country’s neck being loosened, and are hopefully on course toward a less violent and a saner America.

Wednesday evening, President Obama laid out his own gun control plan, including the restoration and strengthening of the assault weapons ban; banning armor-piercing ammo; instating strict punishments for gun trafficking; and generally making it harder for criminals and those people with mental illness who are dangerous to get access to guns.

Critically important, under Obama’s plan, criminal background checks would be mandatory for all gun sales, closing the much-exploited loophole under which gun buyers can avoid screening by purchasing weapons from unlicensed sellers at gun shows or in private sales.

Clearly, Obama will have a hard road trying to get these sensible gun control measures through Congress. Yet last month’s sickening mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school has given momentum to the new push for gun control.

We were disappointed that the governor’s package excluded microstamping. This technology — used to trace bullets to guns that fired them — is championed by local state Senator Dan Squadron and Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh.

We’re also disappointed that City Council candidate Yetta Kurland continues to dodge revealing what she did with her handgun, which last month she told us she no longer possesses. The best thing she could have done would have been to turn the deadly weapon in at an official, gun-buyback program. That would mean “one less gun on the street,” one less gun out there that could take a life — or more than one life.

Yet, instead of simply answering our question about this, Kurland’s spokesperson lectures us that we “misunderstand” gun control and that it’s “such an important issue” that Kurland won’t deign to answer our question.

Kurland portrays herself as a gun control activist, has led gun control vigils — but she won’t tell us what she did with her own gun?

Yes, she’s right, we don’t understand — that is, we don’t understand why she won’t simply tell us what she did with the gun. Is it still out there, a potential threat to kill or maim people? Particularly, given that she portrays herself as a gun control advocate, Kurland must answer this question. If she doesn’t, it surely will be an issue that her campaign opponents will use against her — and, we would say, justifiably so.

We hope Wall Street heard King clearly the first time, and ignores his subsequent backpedal, which was presumably done for political survival.

The “Boehner Betrayal,” as Senator Chuck Schumer calls House Speaker John Boehner’s broken promise to bring a $60 billion hurricane relief package to the floor, will likely have real and devastating consequences in Downtown Manhattan and other areas that were hit even harder by Sandy.

Many businesses close to home have still not reopened and are desperately waiting for relief to rebuild their livelihoods. Others are looking with horror at their repair bills and their loss of customers. In other parts of the city and state and in New Jersey, there  are many without homes — people who can’t even recognize where they lived or worked because the storm just washed it all away.

Boehner’s plan is to take up the bill in piecemeal manner this month with the first vote expected Friday. Boehner may have clinched his leadership re-election by waiting for the new session of Congress, but the delay means the Senate — a body that the Founding Fathers designed to act slowly — must pass a new bill all over again. This during a time when divisive debates continue in Washington on unrelated topics.

It was an outrage that Boehner waited more than two months to consider Sandy relief in order to focus his attention on bad-faith, pointless negotiations with the White House on the “fiscal cliff.”

Our man in Congress, Jerrold Nadler, said extending the hardship was “a total collapse of leadership” on Boehner’s part. He may have been too kind to use the “L” word in the same sentence with the speaker.