Although voters approved a referendum last year that allowed up to 20 percent of the East Hampton Town Community Preservation Fund’s annual income to be used for water quality projects, there have been few indications of how that might work in real life. Now, as the managers of the Whalebone Village affordable housing development in East Hampton have asked the town for up to $376,000 to upgrade its septic system, the lack of guidelines is apparent.

East Hampton Town already is set to begin using preservation fund money as rebates for property owners who upgrade their private septic systems; the application process has begun. Grants of up to $16,000 per property, or 100 percent of the cost of replacement, are available, depending on how close an inadequate system is to one of the bays or harbors.

Specifics about how preservation fund money could be used were vague when voters approved diverting some of it to water quality. The risk was that officials might spend it unwisely, hampering the fund’s original purpose, which was to preserve open land and historical places. 

The East Hampton Town Board should proceed very carefully. As was pointed out by Paul Giardina in his unsuccessful councilman run, other sources of funding for such undertakings may be available, if they are untested here. Moreover, very little scientific information has been presented to prove that the project proposed for Whalebone Village is actually worthwhile. Whalebone was built not all that long ago and met the environmental standards of the time. Now, its managers are telling the town that the waste systems installed to meet those standards are inadequate. Were the standards wrong or is something else at play? Either way, it needs to be cleared up. It also is important to remember that lack of guidance about how preservation funds could be used led to the biggest financial scandal in Town Hall history and the resignation of Supervisor Bill McGintee in 2009.

Whalebone Village must do more than show up at Town Hall with its hands out. At a minimum, the board needs to require impartial environmental and financial analyses before considering whether to direct so much public money its way. 

President Trump again made it plain this week, in moving to drastically cut the size of two protected areas of public land in the West, that he favors exploitation over historical and environmental protection, and over the survival of Native American cultural sites and artifacts. In Utah, he announced Monday that the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments would be reduced to a fraction of their former selves. This is a sad day for those who care about open spaces and America’s wild lands.

Court battles are sure to follow the White House’s decision to reduce the monuments by a total of about two million acres — the greatest such diminution in United States history. One of the opponents’ arguments will be that only Congress has the legal right to shrink national monuments.

Mr. Trump framed the move as a return of authority to local elected officials and away from Washington. But it really is further pandering to anti-government zealots while handing a victory to Republican lawmakers, oil and coal companies, and others.

If Mr. Trump thinks about it at all, his is decidedly an anti-human health and anti-environment administration. Just this week 15 state attorneys general sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency for its failure to meet clean air law requirements on smog. The suit was in response to the E.P.A.’s refusal to follow through on state-by-state plans to reduce air pollution. 

Under Scott Pruitt, the Trump E.P.A. has made a mockery of its name. Mr. Pruitt has spent much of his early tenure gutting regulations, ignoring science, cutting staff, and naming industry insiders to key positions, while, according to news reports, spending his days meeting privately with corporate executives seeking to relax environmental rules.

And who could forget the administration’s abandoning the Paris climate agreement, which now leaves the United States and Syria the only nonsigners?

As 2018 approaches, activists are gearing up to take on Mr. Trump and the Republican Congress at the ballot box. Concern about how we treat the planet and respect its natural resources should be at the top of the issues of interest to voters. 

By now, we have all had our flu shots, right? Well, not exactly. According to federal government statistics, less than half the adults who should get the influenza vaccine each year actually do so. For children, the rate is better, but far from ideal.

Flu shots help protect us from the highly contagious, debilitating illness that can have severe complications in some portions of the population. Children, pregnant women, and those 65 and older are at particular risk, as are those with chronic lung conditions. At best, flu can knock you down for a couple of days, at worst, it can kill.

The shots are inexpensive and available widely, including at large pharmacies, walk-in clinics, and doctors’ offices. If you haven’t yet — and especially if you are in one of the at-risk groups — please consider getting a shot right away. Remember: The flu is contagious so you will be helping others as well as yourself.

We hope that the several people who spoke in opposition to a proposed affordable apartment complex in Amagansett were outliers rather than representative of a majority of hamlet residents. If they were an indication of wide sentiment, this town is in more trouble than we had supposed.

At an East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting earlier this month, preliminary plans for a 38-unit development were presented by the East Hampton Housing Authority. The apartments would be arrayed among 10 low buildings. Rents would be low, starting at $1,425 for a one-bedroom and topping out at $2,400 for a three-bedroom unit, the latter about $1,000 less than a rock-bottom year-round rental of a house in East Hampton Town.

The need is indisputable. Cost of living is among the most common complaints in East Hampton. This makes life especially hard for people at the low end of the wage scale, as well as some retirees. The scarcity of worker housing is a huge issue and it has helped create a year-round hiring nightmare for many businesses. So, too, has the high cost of living been tied to the hollowing out of necessary volunteer services, with fewer young men and women coming through the ranks of our social institutions and available to become firefighters or ambulance personnel.

Concerns were raised by members of the planning board and people in attendance at the Nov. 15 meeting about four commercial spaces in the proposed apartment complex. These objections may be warranted and should be considered carefully. However, the alarms focused on the project’s effect on the Amagansett School should be understood for what they are: overblown and exclusionary if not immoral.

If anything, the Amagansett School would benefit from a few more students. In recent years, its enrollment has been minuscule, with fewer than 10 children in some of grades, while neighboring Springs School classrooms are filled to capacity. For example, enrollment in the Amagansett first grade was 6 students last year; in Springs it was 77. It also needs to be said that the Springs student population was 56 percent Latino in 2016, while in Amagansett it was only 13 percent. 

It is understandable that a few parents might want to preserve the private-school feeling provided at the Amagansett School. One-on-one personal attention is great for kids as they progress. However, it is an affront to the community as a whole for some residents to suggest that new affordable housing is fine as long as it is built elsewhere.

The 38 apartments, should they be built, would be of clear benefit. School taxes might rise a bit, but the money could be found to accommodate a modest boost in enrollment. It also should be noted that despite the school’s size it has three administrators.

Yes, the project, especially its impact on traffic and whether the commercial spaces are really necessary, should get close scrutiny. But, in our opinion, its effect on the Amagansett School would be beneficial.

East Hampton Town’s decision to remove a horse barn on land it bought in Amagansett in 2014 has raised a bit of skepticism. Though some might consider tearing down a barn wasteful, it is the right decision.

The parcel, 19 acres on the north side of Montauk Highway bordered by the Long Island Rail Road tracks, is just east of the hamlet’s downtown. Until its purchase with money from the community preservation fund, the property was under review for a 79-unit luxury development. After the town took title, various ideas were floated for its use, but none could be settled upon, with the poor quality of its soil a deterrent for farming. As time went on, the barn, not all that well constructed to begin with, began to decay.

When voters authorized the community preservation fund in 1998, the understanding was that the money, from real estate transfers, was to be used for open space acquisition for environmental, agricultural, and recreational reasons and to reduce the eventual buildout of East Hampton, countering losses of natural habitat as well as limiting the ultimate number of residences and commercial structures. A secondary purpose was historical preservation. A year ago, East Hampton voters also approved the use of up to 20 percent of annual C.P.F. income for water quality improvements.

As an aside, consensus on the official name of the property is yet to come. The Connecticut developer called the project 555, a nod to its address and that the rental of the apartments would have been limited to those 55 and older. Its previous owner called it Ocean View Farm, though nothing much had grown there in quite some time. The bid specification for the barn’s removal refers to it as the Putnam site, referring to the corporate name of the would-be Connecticut developer. 

Razing the barn makes financial sense for the town. The cost of maintaining the building in its present condition is not obviously legal under the community preservation law. Leasing it to a private party as a horse stable or for storing farm equipment would also appear to be prohibited, but were that legal it might bring its own set of problems for officials. To the extent that some of the wood and windows could be reclaimed, town officials should try to do so. However, removing the barn and planting the area with a cover crop, at least for the time being, is the right approach.

We strongly support the property’s use as an active public space. A walking path on the periphery has been envisioned, leaving room for the annual Soldier Ride convergence there and other worthy events. Another appealing use would be for a portion to be set aside for community garden plots. If the town goes ahead with the massive and arguably necessary new medical facility on Pantigo Place, the ball field there could be relocated to the Amagansett site. There are plenty of good options. Getting rid of a horse barn, which under the best of outcomes would benefit few residents, is just the beginning.

Voters expressed themselves loud and clear on Election Day, as Democratic candidates enjoyed huge wins, including governorship in Virginia and New Jersey and in many other contests. In East Hampton, it was the same, with Peter Van Scoyoc and nearly the entire Democratic slate winning strongly. In Southampton, forgetting for a moment the politically mercurial Jay Schneiderman’s re-election as supervisor, voters rejected a Republican incumbent, instead awarding seats on the town board to two Democrats.

As he did in races elsewhere in the country, President Trump cast a shadow across the polling places. The East Hampton Republican Committee chairman posed for a photo with a cardboard cutout of the president during an inauguration celebration in January, which helped set a negative tone. This was going to be a hard fight anyway for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with a deeply unpopular president. For one, registered Democrats now outnumber Republicans in East Hampton Town in 18 of the 19 election districts. But in off-year elections like this, turnout plays the biggest role, and Democratic voters, and those energized by their dismay about the country’s direction, had an edge for that reason as well.

Digging into the numbers in East Hampton, Mr. Van Scoyoc’s win on Tuesday rivaled that of the outgoing Supervisor Larry Cantwell’s re-election two years ago, when hundreds of thousands of dollars in airport-related money that went to Republicans outraged many voters.

It also did not help that the Republicans’ standard-bearers here had counted on their experience outside of elected office. Asked to select town board members, East Hampton voters have generally favored candidates who came up through the ranks of public service on the many appointed town boards or committees.

The past three election cycles in East Hampton have been difficult ones for the Republican Committee and its chairman, Reg Cornelia, who said he would step down at the end of the year. Monolithic government, even at this level, carries great risks, however, and it is important that the G.O.P. rebound by recruiting popular centrist residents to carry its message forward.

We took a break on Tuesday afternoon to rake the office lawn. About half of the leaves from the maple out front had fallen by then, and, with rain and wind in the forecast, the rest would soon follow. But the curled yellow leaves were dry that day and easy enough to move into a pile at the curb. Here in the village, crews still go around in the fall with a big truck to vacuum them up.

At this time of year, someone from Guild Hall steps outside most mornings with a leaf blower, its grating sound coming across Main Street and through our old single-pane windows. No such racket from us, we declared! Our rake made a pleasing scritch on the sidewalk as we moved our growing heap. When we were done, a few leaves that had gotten through the tines remained on the grass. This was fine with us, a sign that we had made a stand with our rake of defiance.

While we were thinking about leaf blowers, we learned that East Hampton Town’s elected officials may be about to reinstitute free leaf pickup service in some form or other. This is an exciting prospect for residents, many of whom sorely missed the old program after it was eliminated in 2011.

Taxes were the explanation when the town board did away with leaf pickup, though there was also a bit of politics at play as well. Up until then, Highway Department workers had made regular rounds in the fall, vacuuming up piles of leaves left at the roadside. Positions for and against the program were generally divided along party lines, with Democrats urging that pickup continue and Republicans, pushing personal responsibility and fiscal restraint, saying it should be ended.

Now, because much of the equipment has languished and been left to rust, the price for returning to the approach of years past is thought to be too great. Instead, officials, including Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc and Highway Superintendent Steve Lynch, favor a bag system like the one in Southampton Town.

Southampton’s program works this way: Residents can buy biodegradable paper bags at a number of hardware and grocery stores. They fill them with leaves and leave them by the side of the road during announced collection periods. Each street is checked for bags once in the fall and once in the spring, no more. Outside of these collection opportunities, Southampton residents can take bags of leaves year round  to town transfer stations without charge. Hardship exceptions are available, allowing older or disabled residents to leave loose leaves at the side of the road for town collection.

Southampton’s approach is considered a success and seems like something that could work here. East Hampton is a smaller town, and since existing Highway Department trucks could be used to haul the bags, start-up costs would be minimal. The idea should receive serious consideration.

“The Affair,” a cable television series mostly set in and around Montauk, has been back in town lately, shooting scenes for its fifth season. For the most part, the filming has drawn little notice. 

The exception, so far, occurred last week, when the town police shut down a roughly mile-long section of Cranberry Hole Road in Amagansett at the behest of the production company for an entire day. Tempers flared, including, we heard, that of one police officer, who was fed up with irritated residents and others, among them a UPS driver delivering frozen soup, who needed to reach houses down that way. 

Credit is due to East Hampton Town Police Chief Michael Sarlo for responding as soon as he got word. Similarly, Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell was frustrated that the TV crew had pushed things as far as it did. 

Celebrity buzz aside, film and television productions don’t really do much for the East Hampton economy. And the bigger they are, the more they have to bring in supplies from elsewhere. We were amused this week when a trucker hauling food for those taping “The Affair” came into our Main Street office, lost, confused, and asking for directions to the American Legion in Amagansett, only he thought it was a Knights of Columbus hall.

Given that filming brings only an incidental financial gain to the area, officials are correct to keep disruptions — especially road closures — to a minimum.

The East Hampton Village Trustees appear willing to listen to ideas about how to lessen leaf-blower noise. However, as the board considers what primarily is an annoyance, it should also think about a safety problem on village streets — massive landscaping trailers parked in the lanes of travel as workers tend to adjacent properties.

It seems as if the number and size of landscaping trucks and trailers have grown with every season. Officials look the other way when they are left on narrow streets, often in no-parking zones, forcing passing vehicles into the oncoming lanes, especially in the estate sections of the village. 

Unlike officially permitted roadwork or tree trimming, for which the law requires workers to be stationed to direct traffic, these mowers and hedge clipping crews disappear from view the moment their trucks stop. The practice is a clear hazard and arguably illegal: New York traffic law prohibits leaving vehicles unattended in state rights of way; village law allows temporary stops for loading and unloading only.

Not all that long ago, a landscape worker lost his legs here when a passing vehicle squeezed him against a trailer he had left parked in a traffic lane. Pedestrians and bicyclists are similarly at risk, as they move around these obstructions. 

Oddly enough, village police are quick to ticket personal vehicles parked in the roadway, but not so commercial vehicles, which present far more of a hazard. The message is: Don’t try this at home, though it’s okay for the folks who mow your lawn.

Left to their own devices and without bother from law enforcement, landscapers have doubled down, using ever-larger equipment and not trying to back into clients’ driveways even when there is adequate space. Of course, their clients might share some of the blame; many have illegally blocked off public portions of the shoulders or grassed margins of the roads, where work vehicles might otherwise pull off safely. The bottom line is that the fact alone that a truck that is too big to park properly does not give its operator the liberty to leave it wherever he or she wants. 

It is fine that the village might want to do something about the noise from leaf blowers, but officials should not ignore the ultimately more serious problem with the trucks that carry them.