The East Hampton Town Board got down to early 2018 business on Tuesday, doing routine housekeeping and appointing members of various boards and committees. Up soon on their agenda will be choosing someone to fill Peter Van Scoyoc’s councilman’s seat for a year, now that he is supervisor. A special election will be held in November, with the winner serving what would have been the last year of Mr. Van Scoyoc’s term.

Plenty of able candidates might be found among the local Democratic Party ranks to fill the vacancy. Mr. Van Scoyoc and the others on the board are all Democrats, and naming someone from within the family, so to speak, would be an obvious choice. It might not be the right one, however. 

Paul Giardina ran unsuccessfully for town board in November as a Republican and he received 2,464 votes, coming in third behind Kathee Burke-Gonzalez and Jeffrey Bragman. Seating him would be a bridge-building nod to his supporters and to party members who now are otherwise left out at Town Hall. 

If voters did not like what they saw in Mr. Giardina by next fall, they could send him on his way. In the meantime, the town would gain a seasoned public official who is not afraid to ask hard questions when hard questions are needed.

There is a numbing ubiquity to plastic water bottles, despite their general pointlessness and woeful environmental impact. We were reminded of this by a photograph taken at a recent Springs School Board meeting, which showed one Nestlé Pure Life 16.9-ounce water bottle placed in front of each member’s seat. The Springs School Board is hardly the only group at which water in plastic is seen; plastic bottles were deployed at a League of Women Voters candidates’ debate, as they are at many public and private events.

Recycling plastics is known to be worthwhile, but the statistics are not encouraging. According to an academic study last year, nearly 80 percent of the plastics manufactured ends up in landfills or in the environment at large. Health studies have suggested that certain plastics can mimic estrogen as they degrade. Some leach compounds that have been linked to asthma, heart problems, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer. Environmentalists also recommend the use of certified water filters to reduce the chance of exposure to water from the tap.

The Springs School, as with the League of Women Voters and other public and private entities, could help by setting an example of refusing to supply bottled water at their events. Another school, Montauk, has been a leader in this, with a successful fourth-grade effort to get businesses to give up serving drinks with plastic straws. East Hampton Town and Village have banned single-use plastic bags, and a new Suffolk law encourages grocery customers to supply their own bags or pay a 5-cent fee. 

The Springs School’s dozen or so water bottles might not seem worth worrying about, but they are part of what advocates say is a growing crisis. Already, a million plastic bottles change hands each minute around the world, and the shocking number is growing. According to The Guardian newspaper, enough plastic bottles are now sold in a year to reach halfway to the sun if stacked end to end. Some of the world’s discarded plastic ends up in the food chain. 

Schools, above all, should seek to set examples of good stewardship of the planet. Ending the practice of supplying wasteful plastic bottles at meetings is one way to help spread the message that even the smallest steps can make a difference.

Moving into the new year and cognizant of changes to downtowns nationwide and locally, the East Hampton Village Board has signaled that it is willing to consider new rules that might bring more life to Main Street and Newtown Lane. This is welcome, though any policy shifts would have to be made very carefully in order to maintain or even improve the commercial district’s character.

One new vision was presented in October to the village board by a group of architects, who offered a sketch of a greener and bicycle and pedestrian-friendly village with more places to live for working residents and centralized cultural attractions. More recently, the board spoke favorably about relaxing the longstanding prohibition on new restaurants or takeout shops. Done thoughtfully, such changes could add vitality to East Hampton Village, serving workers, residents, and visitors alike.

Also in the wind, but to be watched with substantial concern, is a proposal to relax rules about village inns and hotels, one of which seeks a major renovation. Because nearly all of these accommodations are in the designated historic district, the greatest degree of caution is warranted. 

For the most part, village inns and hotels, though few, were established before land-use rules were adopted, allowing them in close proximity to residences and in places where modernization might produce unsightly or overbearing effects on Main Street. 

In recent years, some hotel and inn owners have pushed the limits. In several instances, they have annexed nearby houses or garages, gradually converting them into guest rooms of questionable legality. Though these increasingly corporate businesses have the right to make a profit, they have proven by their own actions to be too aggressive as neighbors. Any zoning code changes they or their advocates suggest should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

One line from a recent story about a new restaurant being proposed at a Montauk hotel really jumped out at us. Speaking at an East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting on Dec. 13, Kathleen Cunningham observed that a 16-seat restaurant at the Hero Beach Club should not even have received any consideration until there was a better way to deal with the extra wastewater it would produce. Related, though not directly, is a town board proposal for a nearly $33 million Montauk sewage treatment system, into which the Hero Beach Club, among many other enterprises, could be tied.

And there you have it. Even though downtown Montauk is an overbuilt, unmitigated summertime disaster from a planning perspective, the town board has been willing to look favorably at year’s end at a sewage proposal that would remove a major stumbling block for developers who in their own self-interest would make things far worse. At the same time that town officials are trying to figure out how to tamp down the high-season party in Montauk, this proposal is precisely what some observers have feared as ideas for new wastewater infrastructure are put forth.

Assurances to the contrary, a septic waste plan prepared for the town states that new restrictions would have to be written into the code in order to avoid increases in build-out density. Boards, such as those that review planning and zoning projects like the Hero Beach Club’s, are hampered by precedent and limited in the ways in which they can guide growth. Variances are sought, and granted, even though the cumulative effect of many small changes can be detrimental to the community’s overall interest.

In a prior editorial, we addressed our belief that the Montauk sewage treatment plan was an example of misplaced priorities — and that its funding was foolishly tied to the continued existence of erosion-threatened properties. Now, in pointing out how it could immediately lead to additional commercial growth where none is warranted, we hope the incoming town board sees it as yet another reason to slow the process.

The East Hampton Town Board acted properly last Thursday in agreeing to the possible sale of bonds to cover the cost of work on a taxiway at East Hampton Airport. However, another airport question — whether to increase the height of its control tower and move it to another position — is far stickier.

Borrowing money by issuing bonds is not the only option for the taxiway project, estimated at $2.1 million. The town anticipates that its airport fund, which is like a separate bank account, will have a sizable surplus, which could pay for the work out of pocket without the expense of interest to bondholders over time. The work, if and when it is approved, would connect two existing taxiways, bringing them up to contemporary standards. It also would cover the cost of replacing directional lighting on the main runway. Both the taxiway and lighting projects are overdue and are part of what should be seen as routine upkeep, which do not by themselves appear to be a back-door expansion of the airport’s capacity.

The tower is another matter. 

In 2012, when the tower was installed in a hasty, secretive deal that was billed merely as temporary, it was pitched by its backers as an experiment to control noise from helicopters. Few really believed that at the time, including the controllers themselves. The doubts have been borne out, as air traffic has, if anything, increased, and the town now has spent enormous sums and countless staff hours fighting aircraft interests and the Federal Aviation Administration for some limits. 

The thinking in 2012 was that restricting access to the airport was the only way to control noise; the same argument was at the core of the town’s more recent shot at regulating the loudest aircraft, which was rejected by a federal court. Today, helicopters and other aircraft are routed into East Hampton Airport by controllers in weather conditions that previously would have sent them elsewhere, anti-noise advocates say.

Now, after helicopters were sent on cloudy days last summer over several Sag Harbor neighborhoods when controllers could not see their approach from the south and southeast, there is pressure from the town airport manager, Jim Brundige, for a new, taller tower to be built on a spot with better sightlines. 

Opponents say that would be premature in light of the noise study being conducted at great expense as a first step toward new rules that might gain F.A.A. approval. East Hampton Airport might not be seen as even needing an air traffic control tower once the so-called Part 161 study is completed. 

That uncertainty might be behind the push for a new tower. Airport interests would certainly like to see the town commit to a new $800,000 tower before a report comes in that might conclude one was counter to noise-control goals. That seems ample reason for the town board to put on ice any further discussion of replacing the existing tower. When airport interests are in a rush to get something done, residents and officials alike are right to be wary.

There is little argument that something should be done about wastewater in Montauk. The hamlet’s soaring popularity and overcrowding have been linked to water quality problems. The question is whether the $32.8 million initial project now being planned is the correct approach. 

Step one would be for the town to build a centralized sewage system in which waste would be held in a beachside site then pumped to a treatment station near the recycling center on Montauk Highway. About 200 properties would be served in this phase. Additional areas could be tied into the system later, roughly doubling the cost. 

Three major problems are obvious. One is that the areas that would be served are of minimal ecological importance when compared to other, more vulnerable locations. Another is the way the project would be funded and what that says about sound coastal policy. The third is that so far there are no empirical data by which to evaluate over time whether the effort would in the end improve the environment.

Groundwater in downtown Montauk, which would be tied into the system first, is generally believed to drain toward Fort Pond, though some of it reaches the ocean. Fort Pond is considered partially compromised because it has been affected by potentially harmful algae blooms. Nevertheless, it has a thriving recreational fishing scene and its waters are at most times safe enough for human contact. 

This is not to say that Fort Pond doesn’t have to be restored; at some point, it should be. However, it should be clear to officials and leaders of environmental organizations that it does not come close to other waterways in terms of recreational, commercial, or natural importance. Lake Montauk, Accabonac Creek, Napeague Harbor, and Three Mile Harbor, which each supports important fisheries and shellfish harvesting, rank far higher as waterways where money should be spent.

Follow the money, they say. And, following the money, it becomes clearer why one of the sites with the lowest priority for wastewater improvement jumped to the top of the list. The Montauk system would be largely paid for through fees assessed on properties in a new taxation district, with the greatest share of the money from several oceanfront hotels and condominiums — the very structures threatened by erosion and for which as much as $10 million already has been spent in an effort to stave off the inevitable.

The town’s proposed dependency on money from these oceanfront hotels would lock into place the properties’ long-term existence, ignoring the danger of sea level rise and more powerful storms fueled by a warming planet. Experts on coastal policy say the only viable strategy is one of retreat — reducing development over time in the most vulnerable places. By designing new and expensive infrastructure in harm’s way, the East Hampton Town Board and its engineers are ignoring the obvious and dooming future taxpayers to costly efforts to protect something that should not have been allowed in the first place.

It is important to note that the plan’s architect, Pio Lombardo, has said there has not been enough baseline environmental testing to know if the sewage plant would even be worthwhile; right now, it is only guesswork. Nonetheless, Mr. Lombardo has urged a fast-track timeline to meet a June deadline for a state grant that would offset some of the cost. This contradiction needs to be publicly addressed. The new town board should be brave enough to apply the brakes until at least that question is answered.  

Two big — and very different — fund-raising efforts reach important junctures this month. In Sag Harbor, an $8 million goal that would enable a partnership to rebuild the burned movie house and turn it into a genuine arts hub is within reach. In Montauk, the Playhouse Foundation is within striking distance of its target, also $8 million, to add two indoor swimming pools, meeting rooms, and a theater — all very much needed in a hamlet where off-season diversions are limited.

The plan for rebuilding the Sag Harbor Cinema includes a main theater evoking the one badly damaged in a fire almost exactly a year ago. It also calls for a smaller screening room, suitable for classes. It is just as important that it would retain an iconic cultural fixture in a rapidly changing village and stave off the kind of commercial development that might be of little or no interest to residents.

Each is a worthwhile community undertaking that deserves consideration for year-end giving.

The East Hampton Village Board has been looking at some quality of life issues as the new year approaches and as another booming summer season appears likely. One issue overdue for attention is the matter of permits for large private gatherings and special events.

Under current rules, the village is much more lenient than East Hampton Town. Permits are required for parties in the village only when guest and staff vehicles will be parked on public property. Another permit trigger is whether an excess of garbage is expected to be produced, a factor too amorphous to be of much utility in protecting neighbors from too much festivity. 

Changes are under consideration, but the village anticipates that the number of guests, not where they park, will be the determining measure of which events will require permits and which will not. A more detailed application will be part of the change, as will be the procedures for processing requests.

New rules should go a long way toward assuring the village remains the way its residents want it.

Perhaps the most compelling observation in a discussion about a proposed school in East Hampton for special-needs children came recently from a parent of a 3-year-old with autism. The discussion concerned a town-owned site on Stephen Hand’s Path for which a private school offering specialized education had been suggested. Back in November, a number of South Fork school district superintendents objected to the idea during a town board meeting, saying that Gersh Academy’s proposed takeover of the vacant Child Development Center of the Hamptons property was not needed. “Our children are being taken care of,” the Springs School superintendent declared.

Not so fast, Julian Barrowcliffe of Sag Harbor, the father of the 3-year-old, said in effect. “The person to ask is never the service provider, but the service consumers,” he said.

Public school districts are in a tough spot. Faced with a state cap on tax increases, any additional costs to accommodate special-needs students might have to be offset with cuts elsewhere. Under federal law, districts are obligated to pay for students who attend private special-needs schools. 

The South Fork districts educate about half their students with autism alongside other students while the other half gets specialized attention at the Suffolk County Board of Cooperative Educational Services learning center in Westhampton Beach. 

Among the fears expressed by the school superintendents was that students who would go to a private school might never return to the general education population, becoming a long-term financial drain. Gersh Academy, in a letter to East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell, said this was not true, that in its experience, many students are able to return to public schools after reaching their goals. In its letter, Gersh also refuted the idea that its services would cost local districts more than sending students to BOCES. 

In the end, Gersh, as a for-profit company, was found to be ineligible for the C.D.C.H. site. The fact remains that a number of parents were dissatisfied with the status quo and found the Gersh proposal worthy of consideration. Instead of stubbornly insisting that all was well, the school districts should have listened to the parents a little more closely. As Mr. Barrowcliffe suggested, the consumer’s voice is the one that really should count.

If a superior education for special-needs children is desired, the districts should be willing to engage in a public conversation about how to make that possible. School officials just saying everthing’s fine will not make the issue go away.

Attention surrounding Representative Lee Zeldin’s planned fund-raiser with Steve Bannon, late of the White House and now back at the Breitbart organization, overshadowed the fact that he was a co-sponsor of House legislation to allow holders of concealed-firearm permits the right to carry their guns anywhere in the United States. The act would force states to honor out-of-state concealed-carry permits even if they were opposed to doing so. The bill would allow private citizens to carry hidden firearms even in places like New York City, where they are not now permitted.The implications for a country already bleeding from gun violence are dire. Mr. Zeldin’s co-sponsorship of a measure that will lead to even more killing, suicide, and serious injury defies understanding. 

New York has strict standards about who can own a gun, and even tougher permit rules about who can have one hidden on their body in public. By contrast, 12 states do not require permits for concealed weapons at all and many others have lax regulations. Should the House bill become law, anyone legally allowed to carry a gun in his or her home state could also do so in New York. It is something like the way a driver’s license is respected across state lines, only in the case of guns, without training, competency tests, or a clean criminal history.

Critics have derided the House act on several fronts. In New York, District Attorney Cyrus Vance raised the disturbing possibility of 1,000 armed out-of-towners among the crowd in Times Square for New Year’s Eve. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman decried what would, in effect, be the reversal of the state’s strong gun laws. On Long Island, where gang violence has drawn national attention, concealed-carry permission could indirectly put more guns into the hands of members of gangs like the dangerous MS-13 because the risk of arrest for interstate firearms smugglers would be reduced. 

Mr. Zeldin has had consistently high ratings from gun rights and industry groups, such as Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association, but that still does not adequately explain how he could sponsor a bill that is so obviously at odds with the interests of his own home state.