The East Hampton Town Trustees could use a workshop on civility. For those who are not clear about what the trustees do, think of them as the stewards of much of the town’s waterways, some of its beaches, and a few woods roads. They oversee mooring permits outside of Lake Montauk and have a say on where docks and aquaculture projects are allowed, as well as on beach driving. 

One might think that of the town’s various public boards, given their purview, the trustees would be among the most peaceable. Think again. For some time now the meetings have been way too long, up to three-plus hours, and marred by sharp words and intemperate outbursts. Partisanship plays a part, as do long-held grudges about the nature of trustee authority.

Though the trustees are among the lesser-known arms of town government, they are nevertheless expected to behave in a dignified and respectful manner. Those who get into frequent conflicts with other members might want to ask themselves if they really should stay in office. 

President Trump, who owns a handgun and has a New York State permit to carry it hidden, has killed a rule that President Obama put in place before leaving office that would have limited access to guns by some of the more than 70,000 mentally ill who receive full disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. The Obama measure was opposed by both the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, an apparent anomaly that points to the possibility, however far-fetched, that strict gun control could become a nonpartisan effort, as it should. 

Both sides of the congressional divide believe in the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms. The dispute is among those who think guns provide safety, for themselves and the community at large, and those who argue that statistics prove otherwise. Hunters constitute only a small minority of the estimated 70 to 80 million citizens in the United States who are reported to own between 270 million and 310 million guns, almost one for every one of us. Those who argue for strict regulation also point to other advanced and affluent countries, which have many fewer guns and also many fewer crimes and criminals. 

Now a proposal with significant national effect on who carries handguns, and where, is apt to cross Mr. Trump’s desk and be signed into law. Bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate requiring every state to honor every other state’s “concealed carry” law. This means those states with strict laws would have to allow someone who obtained a gun where the law was weak — for example, without a thorough background check — to carry a concealed gun. The N.R.A. calls such a law reciprocal and says it is common sense to make carrying concealed weapons across state lines legal.

Setting aside the question of whether the proposed national law would trample on states’ rights, it is alarming that the bill in the House, which was co-sponsored by at least 163 representatives, including Lee Zeldin, would override state laws on guns in bars, day care centers, school zones, and public parks. 

As for the president, he campaigned on a pledge to abolish gun-free zones in schools as well as military bases. He has been quoted comparing a gun to a driver’s license, saying a driver’s license is merely a privilege while owning a gun is a constitutional right. The comparison begs the question since guns are, with only minor exceptions, intended for killing while deaths in auto accidents are inadvertent results of human or mechanical error. 

Mr. Obama’s directive on the mentally ill was supposed to help the country avoid another Newtown, or San Bernardino, or Orlando. Unfortunately, powerful lobbying by firearms companies and an irrational fear of personal harm have caused a boom in gun ownership and a pending retreat from safety. 

There is scarcely any aspect of the South Fork economy that does not rely on immigrant workers to some degree. People from the Americas, the Caribbean, former Soviet states, and parts of Europe, among others, keep this place humming. Foreign-born hands help build the houses, make the food, take care of our elderly, write novels, create art, teach children, pay taxes, turn down the beds in the hotel rooms. In short, they are us but for place of origin, and paperwork. 

East Hampton Town and Village officials and police have said they do not want a role in any anti-immigrant dragnet envisioned by President Trump. But because of routine police practices, they could be drawn in nevertheless. On a daily basis across New York State, officers pull over drivers who are then often arrested because they do not have licenses. Increasingly in the Trump era, this common event could be a first step toward deportation and devastating impacts on families as well as businesses.

Many police officers we have talked to over recent months favor driver licensing for residents regardless of their immigration status. For undocumented people who must drive to work, doing so now carries the increased risk of being sucked into an expanded federal system and eventually sent to their home countries. New York could fight back by extending licensing eligibility. 

Universal licensing would benefit our communities. It would mean driver’s education classes and eye tests, and that repeat offenders for speeding, drunken driving, or other offenses could be more easily be fined or jailed. And this would lead to safer roads. Granting licenses also would allow vehicle owners to obtain insurance, helping protect all of us in the event of a loss.

That millions of undocumented people drive even though their skills are not tested in the same way as legal resident drivers’ are is a dangerous situation. Already several states, including California, Colorado, and Illinois, offer licenses to anyone who can meet identification and residency requirements. New York should be among them.

In the absence of federal immigration reform that meets both the humanitarian needs of workers and the demands of business, New York should help by allowing immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. This would also reduce the risk of turning traffic enforcement officers into frontline troops in Mr. Trump’s war on our friends and neighbors from other countries, people who are here simply to work and better their lives.

Assemblyman Francisco P. Moya, a Queens Democrat, earlier this month introduced a bill in the New York Legislature that would make this possible. His measure would allow applicants for “limited purpose” licenses regardless of their legal status in the United States. The bill also proposes allowing nonresident driver’s licenses to serve as official identification, giving undocumented workers access to banks and other essential services. Supporters of bills like this say it would reduce insurance premiums statewide and bring in millions in new fees, among other benefits. Bottom line: Reducing the number of unlicensed drivers on New York’s roads is in everyone’s interest.

Buoyed by the prospect of millions of dollars over time from the community preservation fund, East Hampton Town officials are moving quickly on plans to reduce water pollution. In a program that could begin later this year, properties that meet certain criteria could have a portion, or even all, of a replacement sanitary waste system paid for with public money. This is good, but there is still reason to be wary about potential misuse because of a lack of clarity in the underlying state law.

Certainly in East Hampton Town, caution about skimming of the fund should be the first thing on officials’ minds if they learned anything at all from the Bill McGintee-era debacle in which a portion of the C.P.F. money was used for several years to pay ordinary town expenses.

According to a draft presented at a town board meeting last week, as many as 6,000 houses and businesses with inadequate, pre-1973 cesspools could be eligible for rebates of up to $15,000. Separately, in a related proposed law, low-nitrogen systems are to be required for all new construction and large-scale additions, though public funding would not be available. These are important steps toward assuring safe drinking water and keeping the bays, creeks, and harbors productive.

Funding for the rebates would initially come from money authorized by a referendum on the community preservation fund that was okayed in November. A large majority of voters approved a ballot measure to extend the 2-percent tax on most real estate transactions to 2050 and to allow up to 20 percent of the annual income to go to water quality improvement. Other sources of funding might be brought to bear, including perhaps Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s proposed $2 billion water infrastructure bill. And there is talk of a county loan program as well.

Making things difficult from an accounting perspective, however, officials have belatedly said the preservation fund portion for water projects had to be spent in the year it was collected. At least one skeptic has challenged this, asking officials to specify exactly where in the law this supposed requirement is spelled out. As with previous iterations of the fund’s enabling legislation, the loophole and vagaries are significant. 

Income not spent on cesspools or wastewater plants would not be lost; it would roll back into the land acquisition pot to be used for future purchases. Residents who did not receive a rebate commitment from the town in one year if preservation fund receipts dipped would be able to seek approval the following year. Nonetheless, a definitive answer would help all involved make long-range plans.

One of the biggest risks in the November referendum was that voters handed politicians a fat pot of discretionary money with little in the way of oversight or legal guidance. So far, though, East Hampton’s cesspool-replacement plan seems considered and cautious. Adjustments will no doubt have to be made before the program reaches its full potential, but it appears that Town Hall is moving in the right direction.

For eastern Long Island, a White House budget item that would cut funding for the Coast Guard should be cause for alarm. Fortunately, opposition from members of Congress is bipartisan and loud. 

In President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget plan, more than $500 million would be eliminated from Coast Guard funding to help pay for expanding the border wall with Mexico. The cuts would include scrapping a planned state-of-the-art national security cutter and port patrol teams. Faced with the loss, the Coast Guard would have to shift its resources, with a chance that routine operations and search-and-rescue efforts, which are important to recreational boaters and commercial fishing alike, could be hampered.

From an immigration standpoint, the proposed cuts make no sense since, among the Coast Guard’s many jobs is watching for illegal migrants. If an expanded border wall with Mexico is eventually built on land, more people trying to reach the United States will take to the seas — often at great personal risk. This could lead to a humanitarian crisis not unlike that of the Syrian and other refugees making the dangerous passage by water to Europe in which so many people have died. 

In addition, those on the East End who have ever called on the Coast Guard for help or just enjoyed the reassurance that its expertly trained personnel were always at the ready should insist that it not fall victim to the president’s wrongheaded budget priorities.

We hate to rain on the recently revived commuter train parade, but for all the enthusiasm, it is difficult to see how it could be a success. 

The dream of more frequent rail service on the South Fork has been around for a long time. In a new proposal led by State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., the Long Island Rail Road would add trains to its weekday schedule so that people getting to and from work would have an alternative to hopping in their cars. Buses would meet the trains to shuttle passengers the last few miles to their destinations. 

While some highway and main street traffic would be eliminated if the trains eventually were to roll, whether it would be enough to justify the cost is a good question.

The nature of much of the employment in East Hampton Town and on the two forks suggests that private vehicles and commercial service trucks will continue to be necessary. Because there are a limited number of white-collar jobs out here those traveling between towns or hamlets might well have to carry tools or equipment. Many service positions, such as housecleaning and landscaping, require that workers get to remote locations that would never be on any bus route. 

As for summer visitors, those who come by train are already being more or less accommodated by the L.I.R.R., if in ridiculously overcrowded conditions. Those who do not come by rail are unlikely to do so even with new, more frequent service. With tourists and renters coming by car from all over the Northeast, traffic would not be curtailed.

If traffic is the problem, it is unlikely that improvements to rail options will be the solution. Too many in the work force and the vacation crowd are never going to abandon their vehicles, so the ridership is not going to be there to support it.

If there is a real answer, it will be only when towns and villages exert greater limits on development and work to reduce the number of people attracted to the area — including day-trippers, renters in illegal situations, and even hotel guests. No realistic amount of public transit, whether by train or bus or something else, will make a meaningful difference given the diminutive land mass and limited roads. Instead of expanding the L.I.R.R.’s schedules or, as has been suggested, adding a second track here, the money might be better spent on other initiatives.

What ever happened to wait-and-see? State, Suffolk, and local governments announced closings in advance of a winter storm that was supposed to cover the region on Tuesday. When the expected snowfall did not, in fact, pile up, they and the schools that had followed in announcing they would not open appeared a little hasty. Officials might have been forgiven, since the television news was dominated as the week began with apocalyptic weather warnings. Pre-emptive panic, however, was contagious, and, on eastern Long Island at least, the surprise day off made little sense by hindsight.

If one took the time to look away from the TV screen, though, more level heads were saying on Monday afternoon that the storm would not be all that bad. Forecasters at the National Weather Service in Upton said they expected the East End would experience mostly rain and wind. As it turned out, they were correct. Schools most certainly could have held classes. Libraries could have opened. Banks could have operated. Government functions could have gone on. If President Trump really wanted to make America great again, he could have started by insisting that the East Hampton Post Office remain open, for crying out loud.

Certainly there is a degree of risk when winds are high. Just before lunch on Tuesday the wind took down a tree, blocking Main Street near the East Hampton Presbyterian Church. Roads were impassable elsewhere for a time, thanks to fallen limbs. Gerard Drive in Springs was flooded in the usual places. Electricity was interrupted in some locations. Downtown Montauk’s already thin ocean beach took yet another pounding. End of the world it was not. But there is something to be said for staying home on a nasty day with a cup of tea by one’s side and a cat on the lap. 

After reviewing complaints from residents dating back several years, the East Hampton Town Board is taking a needed step to control film and television shoots on private property. 

Unlike when a film crew is working on a beach, road, or at another government-run site, production companies have been able to operate in houses and business establishments without having to seek a permit. This has resulted in neighborhood disruptions and traffic slowdowns from rubber-neckers. 

The intense use when, for example, a crew on Showtime’s “The Affair” took over a house in Beach Hampton was unacceptable. One concern was that the massive production vans parked on the area’s narrow lanes could prevent access by emergency vehicles in the event of a fire or other call. Since then, the producers have parked their large vehicles elsewhere, though questionably again on private property.

The town has strict rules about how residential properties can be used. Single-family houses are supposed to be just that — residences, not production studios or almost any other for-profit business. The list of what can be conducted in or around a house is notably short, with tight restrictions on parking, among other things. If the town is lenient in one area, there can be ripple effects in others. 

As important as is quality of life, a more overarching issue is the commercial use of residences and the expansion of some businesses for uses not provided for in either the zoning code or on a property’s certificate of occupancy. We all appreciate good entertainment, but it is important that film and television are not afforded special treatment lest the walls come tumbling down for anything else.

Government does some things well and there are some things best left to private contractors. The East Hampton Town Trustees are thinking about buying and operating a dredge to keep East Hampton’s harbor entrances navigable. This is one job better left to the professionals.

We sympathize with the notion that crops up from time to time for the town to go it alone. Dredging is necessary and access to some waterways has been limited over the years as officials and boaters have waited for a contractor hired by the county to get around to jobs on the South Fork. In the meantime, shoals build up. The trustees and town have occasionally hired an excavating company to work from shore, but this is not the kind of large-scale approach needed, especially at the mouths of our larger harbors. 

In our experience, government entities that have taken a function performed by contract with qualified outsiders and assigning it to in-house employees have often come to regret it. Added salaries, staff discipline, even finding sites for a new government division have proven difficult. There are plenty of good reasons why everything from roads to NASA spacecraft are built by industry, not government hands. Dredging, though less complex than sending a probe to the edge of the solar system, nevertheless requires specific skills not in wide supply. Also, maintaining a town dredge during inevitable periods when there is no call for sand removal would be a problem and a financial drain. A promising alternative has emerged.

At a recent trustee meeting, consideration was given to creating a consortium of sorts among East End towns and incorporated waterfront villages, which would be able collectively to amass enough work to attract bids from contractors. This would likely avoid the cost of having a dredge stationed locally. Work could make the rounds on a prearranged schedule, keeping mobilization expenses from adding big money to the bill if a dredging barge had to be brought from far away each time it was needed.

The trustees are right in having a sense of urgency: The harbors need attention now. Using the power of an inter-municipal market to get the job done could be the most expedient approach of all.

Separately, the town trustees deserve credit for agreeing to expand the areas where noncommercial oyster-growers will be invited to place their gear. The prodigious filter power of oysters can help keep marine waters clean. Engaging residents more closely with the environment and food production counts as a good thing, too. More areas for oyster cultivation should be opened soon.

East Hampton Village should have just said no to a smoke-and-mirrors request from representatives of Ronald Perelman, the owner of the Creeks estate on Georgica Pond, at the outset. Mr. Perelman seeks a new zoning classification created for him alone specifically to legalize illegally built structures there. Instead, though skeptical, board members are taking time to consider the proposal. They should not have been so polite. 

Mr. Perelman’s problems at the Creeks are of his own making. The legal tangle there was triggered only by an accidental discovery following a 2012 fire, when a village inspector noticed that considerable illegal construction had taken place. Since then efforts to bring the property into compliance with the law have been stymied. 

Now, Mr. Perelman, who has not been a good neighbor to the pond over the years, according to his representatives’ admissions, is dangling a carrot before the board. In a March 2 presentation, his representatives said there were 17 septic waste systems on the property, and that apparently not all of them had Suffolk Health Department approval. If Mr. Perelman were granted the new zoning, he would then upgrade to the latest waste technology, they offered.

That he and his representatives would try to leverage doing the right thing only now in exchange for a sweetheart zoning deal is offensive. He could have afforded to make upgrades years ago; he was listed by Forbes in 2016 as the 33rd richest American.

Village Trustee Barbara Borsack put it right at the March 2 meeting: “If we are dealing with someone who doesn’t care about the rules, even if we put all these new rules in place, why would we assume that they would be followed?”

If officials give Mr. Perelman what he wants, it would in effect be rewarding him for flouting the law. If he gets what he wants, other wealthy village landowners are sure to take note and to clamor to be next in line for special treatment. 

As hard and expensive a fight as it may be to get Mr. Perelman to remove the illegal construction at the Creeks, that is the only right approach, and the village should be ready to slug it out over the long haul.