The East Hampton Chamber of Commerce’s first street fair, held on May 20 on Newtown Lane, was, by most accounts, a great success. Hundreds of year-round residents and visitors alike strolled the street to stop at booths set up by artists, nonprofits, artisans, and others in an event that ran from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Based on the warm reception the fair received, the chamber can be expected to seek to organize it again in the future. 

If there was one complaint, however, it was about the fair’s location. Laid out along the center of the several hundred yards of pavement from Main Street to the Reutershan parking lot entrance, the booths drew attention away from the facades of Newtown Lane’s shops and may have dissuaded some would-be retail customers from coming to the village. Usual Saturday sales were off in some cases.

The suggestion has been made that in the future, the fair be placed in another location, perhaps farther up Newtown Lane in front of the middle school. We disagree. The sense of community and good will that the street fair created would be diminished in a more remote location, even a block farther away from the Main Street intersection. The number of random visitors who happen upon it while headed east or west on Route 27 would be diminished as well. And the remarkably festive feeling of being in a normally busy street would be difficult to capture in any other location, or even midweek, as some have suggested.

As for the retailers along Newtown Lane, at a future fair they could make more of an effort to get in on the action, laying out sale items or handing out free promotional swag to promote good will and build brand recognition. Those business owners who are not members of the chamber of commerce might take the opportunity to join and make any opposing views heard instead of sniping after the fact.

Considering that Newtown Lane is a public street, that the village board, as the public’s representative, backed the fair in the first place, and that attendance was stellar, it should be allowed to return.

East Hampton Village residents will be asked Tuesday to select either Philip O’Connell or Arthur Graham as a trustee or member of the village board. The winner will face re-election in 2018. In recent interviews, the candidates differed little about how the village should be run, so making an endorsement is tricky, as it comes down to intangibles more than any one thing.

Mr. O’Connell holds a seat on the board now, having been appointed to replace Elbert Edwards, who died last year. He has been around village government for a long time, was chairman of its planning board at one time and now is a member of the village’s planning and zoning committee. He is a lawyer, works for Corcoran Group Real Estate, and is a member of the East Hampton Fire Department.

Mr. Graham’s community involvement here has been with nonprofits, in particular the East Hampton Historical Society and Thomas Moran Trust. He worked in finance in New York City before his retirement and is now a member of the village planning board.

Neither Mr. O’Connell nor Mr. Graham has anything very critical to say about current village affairs. Both seem to think the village is running smoothly and both favor a program that could include incentives for homeowners to replace outdated or failed septic systems to improve water quality in Hook and Georgica Ponds.

On noise pollution, Mr. Graham said he favored a slightly more restrictive stance, in an attempt to concentrate the annoyance to limited periods. For example, he suggested exploring zones in which leaf blowing and the like might be limited to specific days of the week. Mr. O’Con­nell is of the opinion that it would be an imposition on efficiency to adopt further restrictions on when and how landscaping companies operate within village limits.

Neither candidate has anything to offer about affordable housing. Instead, both seem content to pass the buck to the town, or other nearby communities, despite the significant proportion of jobs that come from private residences and businesses within the village. This is disappointing. At one time, most of the second floors on Main Street and Newtown Lane contained apartments; now, because they are used for offices and retail, they add to the problem. A suggestion during an interview that the Sea Spray Cottages, which buoy the village budget by more than $1 million a year, might be converted into housing for village-area employees elicited little more than blank stares.

Conversely, Mr. O’Connell and Mr. Graham both welcome a pending purchase of several acres of land to expand Herrick Park using $4.6 million from the town’s community preservation fund. Neither appeared to see a contradiction between buying land for low-key recreational use and not doing anything to make sure that low and middle-income village residents and young people just starting out can remain here. This is a serious oversight.

Both also seem content with the current effectiveness of the village’s residential zoning laws, though perhaps to differing degrees. Mr. O’Connell supported the recent changes in the village code, and most clearly appeared to oppose further restrictions in favor of what he called property rights.

Mr. Graham appeared somewhat more open-minded. He raised the question of too-big houses on small lots, citing several recent expansions on Mill Hill Lane as an example. On the other hand, he seemed to think the owners of the village’s larger properties should pretty much be allowed to build whatever they want. 

As we said at the outset, whoever prevails in Tuesday’s vote will have to stand for re-election in 2018, should he seek a full, four-year term. Mr. Graham suggested that he would give it another shot if Mr. O’Connell wins. 

Replacing Mr. O’Connell now would not appreciably change the politics and policies of the village board. Mr. Graham is more vocal about his views, perhaps, but that does not mean he would make a better elected official. For us, it has come down to each man’s local service record: Mr. O’Connell, who has been around village government for a long time and has been a part of the Fire Department for longer, has the edge by this measure, and he has earned our somewhat qualified endorsement. 

The funny thing about Memorial Day’s being considered the beginning of summer is that it is not really the beginning of anything, at least not as far as the weather goes. The calendar tells us almost a month of spring is yet to come by the time the big weekend crowds arrive and the season plays along, frustrating those who would want the weather to behave otherwise.

Because of rain, spring has been notably strong. Grass seems in need of perpetual cutting. Trees and roadsides became almost jungle-like overnight. Pollen covered everything, and then we were thankful that it washed away. Birds seemed to rejoice in the abundance of it all. The ponds are brimming. 

Ah, the ponds. Representatives of a number of Georgica homeowners have asked the town trustees for an emergency cut across the sand to relieve flooding, arguing that conditions are ripe for an increased algae bloom. Normally, the trustees authorize twice-yearly “lettings” of the pond and are unsympathetic to requests to diverge from that timetable, in part to protect the endangered least terns and piping plovers known to nest on the shoreline.

We are reminded of what the late Stuart Vorpahl had to say about such requests. Mr. Vorpahl would frequently recall the time a Georgica grandee came before the trustees to protest. “Your pond is on my lawn!” the landowner cried. “No,” Mr. Vorpahl, a trustee, told him, “your lawn is in our pond.”

That attitude has not always been appreciated by pond-front residents, some of whom took it upon themselves several times in the past to illegally open a channel to the ocean under cover of night. This should not be allowed to happen this year, and the trustees and law enforcement officials must make sure it does not. 

Mr. Vorpahl had it right.

A Montauker of our acquaintance told us this week about a low point in her Memorial Day weekend. “I made the mistake of going into town at 1 on Saturday,” she said. “How was it?” we asked. “Hell,” she said.

Think about that for a minute. A long-term taxpaying resident views a trip to the business district as a descent into the abyss. Okay, well, for sure there are worse things, but looked at in the abstract, the fact that Montauk’s downtown is an overcrowded mess represents a profound failure of town government to manage growth. 

East Hampton Town officials are in the process of creating studies for each of the hamlets’ business districts. One for Montauk will be presented at the Montauk Firehouse tomorrow at 7 p.m. Anyone interested has been invited to attend to hear what the consultants have to say about shopping, parks, and the like. Whether anyone will want to address the fact that Montauk is too crowded and that the summer resort scene has gotten out of hand remains to be seen, but that should be at the top of the agenda.

There seems some kind of collective delusion at work in East Hampton Town along the lines that because having money is good, having more of it is more good. As the region struggles with noise, pollution, traffic, and additional demands for police, though, that arithmetic must be called into question. 

People should not have to hear themselves calling their hometown hell, even on Memorial Day weekend. Town Hall, and the candidates for town office, are you listening?

With the assistance of hired consultants, East Hampton officials are taking one of their periodic looks at aspects of how the town is regulated and how they might balance growth and residents’ needs in the future. Changes certainly are necessary, but whether the process embodied in the current set of so-called hamlet studies will be adequate remains to be seen. 

In a nutshell, the problem is that though East Hampton Town occupies a narrow, environmentally and infrastructurally challenged isthmus capable of being home to a limited number of people, the actual peak population reaches well beyond the capacity. How land-use regulations are crafted — and in whose interest — has been a largely unsolved riddle since at least the 1960s and the birth of zoning.

Given current trends, there is ample reason for alarm. Summer weekend traffic and crowds are on the edge of unbearable. A lot of residents are beginning to hate the place we have become. Noise, brawls, and public drunkenness disturb once-peaceful Montauk. Town and county officials are planning to spend millions in a last-ditch effort to save the waters. And what do the consultants offer? Platitudes about adding more workforce housing and bike trails. Forgive us for a bad attitude, but we have heard this all before. 

The central flaw in the thinking at Town Hall is the belief that we can manage growth when the region has reached a point at which growth should actually be reversed. According to the consultant’s conservative figure, some 73,000 people pile into East Hampton in the summer. This is well beyond what any rational planner would consider a sustainable level, given all the constraints dictated by the landscape, lack of sewage treatment, and limited roadways and emergency services, to name but a few. At a minimum, town officials need to be talking about how to adopt a zero-growth strategy, how to reduce that peak population and eliminate problematic attractions, such as scarcely contained outdoor entertainment venues. 

This year presents a chance for a debate about what the town will be like in 5 or 10 or 50 years. Voters will choose a new town supervisor and two board members in November. In the lead-up to Election Day, we believe that a conversation about the very nature of East Hampton must take place. Should it be a kind of Disney World by the beach for the affluent and short-term visitors who care little about their effect on the place, or should it be returned to the kind of place its residents really want — one that is beautiful, easy to get around in, and quiet? 

Make no mistake, this is an existential moment for the town, but real and lasting solutions are possible, as long as officials and consultants are asking the right questions, which so far, they are not.

Early morning. The sun just up. The heat warming the pavement. A box turtle, drawn by the warmth or going from one place to another, creeps forward and settles on the center line as a hurtling truck approaches.

Long Island is box turtle country, and June is one of the peak months for the vulnerable reptiles to be on the move, seeking sandy spots in which to lay eggs. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation advises motorists to be vigilant for small, domed shapes, especially near marshes and other wetlands. To move a turtle from a dangerous position, the D.E.C. says, always try to place it on the side of the road in the direction it appears to have been headed.

Box turtles are a fascinating native species and endure here despite significant habitat reduction. They can live up to 50 years, often remaining within a relatively small home range of a couple of acres or less. It takes 10 years for females to reach breeding age, and when they do, they can lay only a few eggs a year. Consequently, the loss of just one female box turtle can have a real effect on the local population. But, looked at another way, helping just one across the road can give a future generation of turtles a chance. Stay alert.

What may have seemed impossible following the fiery destruction of much of the Sag Harbor Cinema in December now appears, if not a sure thing, then increasingly likely. The prospect is exciting.

The old Sag Harbor movie theater was a hoary favorite. Cavernous and dark and with a distinctive musky scent wafting from red-upholstered seats, it was as far from a modern multiplex as one might get. Its programming, too, was different, being mostly art films and independent titles not regularly seen in the big chain movie houses in East Hampton and Southampton. As charming in its own quirky way as it was, the crowds were never large; on a winter’s night you might be the only one in the place taking in the new French film you read about in The Times. How it kept going seemed a mystery, which was part of its appeal. It would be fair to say that as a cultural institution it had plenty of unrealized potential.

What the Sag Harbor Cinema might become is what makes the effort to resurrect it compelling. The plan put forward by devoted members of the community calls for the restoration of its iconic facade, behind which would be three screens, two in large theater spaces, the other in a space more appropriate for private events or classes. Those backing the effort include boldface names, such as Billy Joel and Julie Andrews, and local cultural leaders, such as Anne Chaisson of the Hamptons International Film Festival and Andrea Grover of Guild Hall. 

A deadline of July 1 has been set to reach a $6 million milepost, agreed to by the cinema’s owner, which would move the project closer to reality. The artist Eric Fischl has offered $1 million, the biggest pledge so far.

This is an ambitious project to be sure, but one well worth the effort. Sag Harbor has a distinguished artistic history, including in film. The cinema, if it can become the institution now envisioned, would be an important cultural anchor for the entire South Fork.

One more thing should be said. Though the cinema’s entrance and lobby were lost, Sag Harbor firefighters, aided by many others from neighboring departments, were able to limit damage along Main Street and save the auditorium itself from total loss. Their efforts are to be remembered and commended.

A bicyclist was struck and seriously injured Saturday evening in East Hampton Village. According to someone who was nearby, the bike had been weaving unsteadily before it came into contact with a passing vehicle, and the cyclist was thrown to the pavement. This is just one of the recent incidents here in which someone was hurt. And, as we hurtle headlong into the Fourth of July weekend, it is important to think for a moment about how all of us can help make the roads a little safer and saner. Bicyclists and pedestrians are especially vulnerable.

One South Fork police department sent out a message this week reminding drivers to be on the watch for bikers and people on foot. Staying within speed limits is key, it said, as sudden stops are sometimes necessary. It also pointed out that lush roadside vegetation can create blind spots.

Responsibility for staying safe is shared by bikers and pedestrians, too. Police have advised crossing streets at crosswalks or, in the case of bicycles, at proper intersections. Bright or reflective clothing is a good idea, as is avoiding the distractions of electronic devices.

On the subject of bicycles, it needs to be said that it is outrageous that many local motels and rental properties provide them to guests but do not also supply helmets. Encouraging people who might be unfamiliar with the area — or with how to ride a bike altogether — to potentially get in harm’s way is a very bad idea. It is stunning that anyone could welcome visitors and then so blithely put them at risk.

Lost amid all the attention to Russia’s election meddling is the fact that the Trump administration is considering reducing the number and scale of the national monuments across the country as well as 55 million acres of Atlantic seabed off the East Coast. Separately, a suit by a coalition of fishing organizations challenging the Obama decision to create the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument is making its way toward trial. If the Trump administration eliminates the seamount monument, their suit would become moot. For those concerned about the long-term health of the marine environment this is a very bad prospect indeed. 

President Obama created the offshore monument in his last year of office. It includes a portion of the Georges Banks, a traditionally productive area for commercial fishing about 180 miles east-southeast of Montauk that is also home to a rare collection of cold-water coral and many species under federal protection. Under the Obama order, the last commercial fishing there would end by 2023. Oil and gas leases would be curtailed.

Environmental groups strongly supported President Obama’s designation of the area as a national monument. Among their arguments was that as climate change threatens fish, shellfish, and marine mammals elsewhere, protected seamounts could serve as a refuge and nursery — a haven for at-risk species not unlike national parks on land. 

The Obama administration said it would provide financial help for the fishing industry economically affected by the monument. A fully funded plan to aid the displaced fishing fleet, while also protecting critical undersea habitat, was the right way to plan for the future. Whether the protections will stand under Mr. Trump remains to be seen. Were the White House to seek to reverse the seamounts monument designation it would be consistent with Mr. Trump’s rhetoric about American jobs. But it would also be a terrible mistake if the reason he did so was to sell the seafloor to special interests.

Here’s hoping that the free shuttle bus set to begin in Montauk next week with $100,000 in state funding finds enough riders to justify its operation. Acting on concerns about traffic and complaints about fare gouging by some taxi drivers, East Hampton officials have announced that the Hampton Hopper will operate a route that includes stops at the Montauk railroad station, the docks, Hither Hills State Park, and the downtown business area.

Whether the buses will reduce traffic congestion in any meaningful way, as hoped, is unknown, but that is not the sole measure by which its success should be assessed. Providing a dependable, safe way for visitors or people without cars to get around will be good for all of us. Consider that vehicle emissions are among the largest sources of greenhouse gases and that Montauk is at the forefront locally of challenges from erosion exacerbated by sea level rise. Anything that cuts the use of cars even a little is a net positive.

What would make the bus experiment even better would be if it were operated with low-emission or electric vehicles. Already, there are plans to link its route to that of Hamptons Free Ride, whose small all-electric fleet reaches points not on the Hopper’s planned loop. Also worth thinking about is whether its planned 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. schedule is too focused on visitors and ignores those who might otherwise want to use the bus to get to their jobs in the morning.

If the nascent service is carefully managed and quickly adapts to ridership patterns as they emerge, it looks like it will be a winner.