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. 

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.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation recently announced plans to “streamline” a key method of environmental review. Part of the reason is that the department has been underfunded and spottily staffed for years. 

Cutting back on some responsibilities to be able to concentrate on others makes sense, given the financial realities. But it is hardly good news for those concerned about what effects public and private projects can have on their neighbors and surroundings.

The State Environmental Quality Review Act, often referred to as SEQRA, has been around for decades, and though its effectiveness has had its ups and downs, it remains an important tool for making sure that New York’s natural surroundings, wildlife, and community resources are protected.

The impetus for the change comes from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s New York State Lean Initiative. In a proposal circulated late last month, the conservation department said it would expand the list of the projects exempted from SEQRA to include small solar arrays and parkland acquisitions, which would seem like good ideas. 

According to the state, the most frequent complaint from the business community is that permit approvals are often delayed as governmental review plods along. This is a valid concern; representatives of some industries have even said the slow pace of SEQRA review is an impediment to expanding or moving to New York.

On the East End, however, the state’s proposed relaxation of required review of subdivisions of 10 acres or less may go too far. Though the draft still calls for environmental assessment of such subdivisions if they were “substantially contiguous” to wetlands or other significant areas that would seem insufficient to fully protect them. Given the nearness of bays and harbors to nearly every parcel of land on the North and South Forks, as well as our groundwater sources, only the highest degree of scrutiny will do.

Local officials and environmental groups should look very closely at the state plan. Loosening the rules might be good for business, but, on the East End at least, the fragility of the natural surroundings should take precedence over monetary concerns.

A wave of commercial redevelopment in Montauk has had impacts on traffic and noise and the hamlet’s sense of neighborliness, but it also is suspected of having a huge impact underground. 

According to Kevin McAllister, the former Peconic BayKeeper and founder of Defend H2O, East Hampton Town and Suffolk officials have been complicit in allowing large-capacity cesspools to contaminate groundwater. According to an official count there are as many as 105 cesspools serving businesses in East Hampton Town.

Alternatives to cesspools that leach pollutants into groundwater exist, but property owners can be resistant, especially if officials refuse to force the issue.

In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency banned the construction of new cesspools that are intended for more than 20 people. By 2005, the regulation was strengthened to require them all to be removed. Only they were not, at least here on the East End.

Mr. McAllister said the federal rule has been ignored by the county, which handles permits for septic systems, and the town, which has jurisdiction over individual permit applications. In Mr. McAllister’s view, work at a number of Montauk restaurants and hotels should at least have brought violations of the large-capacity cesspool ban to local attention. 

In an October letter to Suffolk Executive Steve Bellone, State Assemblyman Steve Englebright suggested what he called “grandfathering” of offending large-scale cesspools. By that he meant allowing waste systems built before the ban went into effect to remain in place. Though couched in polite language, Mr. Englebright’s message came through clearly: Knock it off.

Also in October, an E.P.A. Region 2 groundwater office warned East Hampton Town that “approving an application without the required upgrades allows facilities to continue to violate the federal law.”

In November the East Hampton Town Planning Board ignored that advice, voting that it would review an application for the expansion of Arbor restaurant in Montauk — owned by Marc Rowan, a private equity billionaire — despite not being sure if its cesspool complied with the E.P.A. ban. This came after a respected septic waste company presented information that it did not comply. The matter is suspicious; the town often refuses to issue permits or even accept applications when there is doubt about whether county, state, or federal rules are met.

As East Hampton and other East End towns take on water pollution, they should not be allowed to forget that the E.P.A. has been an ally. Whether the ban will remain in place as the Trump administration settles in is another issue. In the meantime, commercial projects should not be approved until they follow the law.

From conversations locally, it seems that a fair number of rank-and-file supporters of President Donald J. Trump really fear, deep in their hearts, the prospect of a terror attack within the United States by radicalized Muslims. As irrationally improbable as that may be — deadly violence in the United States since 9/11 is overwhelmingly a homegrown crisis — the so-called immigration ban makes them at least feel safer. They are not alone; according to polls cited by The New York Times, almost half of U.S. respondents favored more restrictions on migrants from “terror-prone” regions.

Such poll data might help explain why Representative Lee Zeldin, the First District congressman, was among those speaking out in favor of Mr. Trump’s precipitious order blocking entry to Green Card holders and others on Friday. But it does not explain how Mr. Zeldin, who has often sought to score political points by promoting his Jewish background, can so easily promote a policy so based on religous and ethnic discrimination. 

Mr. Zeldin appeared to want to have it both ways this week, by working for the release of a Stony Brook University linguistics doctorate candidate from Iran who had been detained at John F. Kennedy Airport as a result of Mr. Trump’s executive order. In a press release, Mr. Zeldin’s office said that he had been monitoring the situation.

Also worth noting is that Mr. Zeldin, during his overseas deployment with the United States Army, likely crossed paths with some of the Iraqi translators and other on-the-ground support staff now barred from entry by Mr. Trump’s order.

We would hardly expect Mr. Zeldin to turn on the president now. He was among Mr. Trump’s earliest supporters during the primary and won re-election by a large margin in November. Adding to his confidence perhaps is the fact that Mr. Trump easily beat Hillary Clinton in the First District. But bowing to the political winds does not excuse him from standing by as many core American values are assailed by the White House. We would hope that Mr. Zeldin would have a sudden change of heart, but we, sadly, do not see that happening any time soon.

Despite what Senator Jeff Flake from that great oceanfront state of Arizona said, the Montauk sandbag sea wall did what it was supposed to do this week as a northeaster pounded the beach. Senator Flake, you might recall, included the $9 million United States Army Corps of Engineers project among his annual list of wasteful government spending.

Though others differ, for the owners of the several downtown motels, private residences, and condominium complexes the sea wall was taxpayers’ money well spent. However, in the long run, the sea wall was a mistake. Senator Flake called it a boondoggle, and he was right. 

Following Hurricanes Irene and Sandy in 2012, the area was left exposed and the buildings at risk of falling into the breach. The Army Corps’s work to save them was completed last year. Mr. Flake is correct that the money Congress appropriated after Sandy for erosion-related projects in the Northeast could have been far better spent. By building a sea wall in Montauk, the corps only delayed a lasting solution and left Town of East Hampton and Suffolk residents on the hook for untold millions to maintain a layer of sand on something that should not have been built in the first place. 

 Previous town boards had worked for years to draft a coherent erosion policy, with Albany’s approval, but that was sidestepped without explanation by every agency that had a hand in the project. This should not suggest that officials were corrupt, but rather that the challenges of managing the developed coastline are beyond current government regulatory abilities.

This week’s storm underscored a fact that was clear after Irene and Sandy: Downtown Montauk’s beachfront row of structures is doomed without costly and ongoing sand replenishment. However, since the Army Corps has said it would not take on such efforts in the coming decades, it will be the town’s responsibility. 

Already, local officials are getting spooked about their risky financial exposure, trying to convince the Army Corps that the project is not technically completed and, therefore, that it is still federal responsibility to pay for new sand in the aftermath of this week’s storm. That is a nice try, but hardly the stuff of long-term strategy.

Unlike in Sagaponack and Water Mill, where millionaire and billionaire homeowners pooled resources to fund their own private effort, downtown Montauk’s businesses simply do not have the means to go it alone. Moreover, taxpayers in Montauk or the town as a whole should not be expected to pay to continue the folly.

The officials who wrote the town’s erosion law knew this decades ago. They understood that the only option in the worst-hit areas was for the motels and houses to be shifted landward, away from the danger zone, or removed entirely. By allowing the Montauk sea wall to be built in contravention of the law, today’s town officials delayed a sensible solution that would have cost taxpayers far less in the long run than ongoing sand replenishment. We have to wonder what it will take to convince them to change course. 

Senator Flake apparently found the name Dirtbag Beach, as some local commentators called the Montauk effort, amusing. In his remarks, he said such federal spending should have gone to national priorities such as infrastructure and health research. It is hard to argue with that. But it is also hard not to see the need for a federal role in coastal management — as long as the Army Corps is not in charge.­

East Hampton and Sag Harbor Villages want drivers to slow down, way down. In separate votes, elected officials in both jurisdictions recently decided to reduce the speed limit on a number of streets — to 20 miles per hour. Forget Sammy Hagar, who rode his hit “I Can’t Drive 55” to modest fame in the 1980s, the powers-that-be seem to think even 25 is too fast.

In Sag Harbor, it is easier to understand the lower speed limit, which was imposed last week on most of the streets in its historic district. That village’s narrow, doglegged streets often require drivers to proceed at a creep. But on Mill Hill Lane, one of the streets the East Hampton Village Board voted on Friday to change to 20 miles per hour, it simply does not make sense. Other streets on which the new turtle-speed rules will apply are King Street, McGuirk Street, Middle Lane, and Meadow Way.

Although villages have the authority to make these rules, it could be a mistake to do so. With so many visitors from away here in the warmer months, limits that defy familiar expectations could lead to tailgating and unsafe passing as out-of-town motorists whip around vehicles they think are moving at abnormally slow speeds. Just think about going 25 on Dunemere Lane in East Hampton Village in July as some hotshot in a $100,000 sport utility vehicle rides your rear bumper. Imagine how much road rage would be the result if the speed were lowered to 20! 

If speeding is a problem, more enforcement is the solution, not maddeningly low limits that will make scofflaws of even the most conscientious drivers

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has said he would like to close a loophole that allows the use of handheld cellphones by drivers when vehicles are stationary but on the roadway. This is a terrific idea.

Horror stories abound about the dangers of motorists distracted by their phones. Numerous studies have definitively connected cellphone use to increased numbers of accidents. In as many as one in five car crashes in the United States, a driver was talking on a cellphone at the time of impact. Federal statistics show that drivers were distracted, often by the phone, in about 10 percent of fatal accidents involving teenagers. A 20-year-old Amagansett driver who recently admitted he had been texting when he lost control of his vehicle and crashed into the woods was indeed lucky that he wasn’t hurt.

Credit is due The Albany Times Union for noticing the proposal in Mr. Cuomo’s State of the State report this month. In it, the governor would prohibit any use of cellphones by drivers under 18, although hands-free use by adults would still be permitted, as would calls and other functions when a vehicle is stopped on the side of the road. The idea that motorists at traffic lights always stop texting or looking at email messages until they have started moving again is wishful thinking. 

Banning the use of phones in vehicles that are on the roads but not moving would make law enforcement more effective, as officers could more easily spot offenders. One can imagine how many tickets might be issued if a spotter was stationed at the intersection of Main Street and Newtown Lane in East Hampton Village, for example. In fact, someone could look out from The Star’s front office windows and tally up any number of violations any day of the week.

One study, by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that drivers who flout cellphone bans tend to engage in other risky behavior, such as speeding, unsafe lane changes, tailgating, and sudden stops. Giving police an additional way to impress on them the importance of following the rules, in the form of a ticket and points on a driver’s license, before they cause a serious accident could help increase road safety for all of us. This is similar to the tough rules on drunken driving, which have been cited in helping to reduce fatalities.

A pending bill that could get at Mr. Cuomo’s goal of safer roads has come from State Senator Carl Marcellino of Oyster Bay. The proposal would redefine the existing cellphone law’s meaning of “in motion” to include vehicles stopped in heavy highway congestion. (We have all been behind someone on the Long Island Expressway who did not notice that traffic was moving again as he or she played Candy Crush or texted mom.) Mr. Marcellino’s bill would also prohibit the use of cellphones when a vehicle was stopped at a traffic signal, railway crossing, stop sign, or any other traffic control device.

The drivers of commercial vehicles are already subject to similar restrictions. It makes sense to extend them to the rest of New York State’s motorists.

On the eve of Donald J. Trump’s inauguration, opposition to his presidency is at a historic high. As few as 40 percent of Americans polled this week said they had a favorable opinion of the incoming president. 

Disapproval of Mr. Trump is much more a matter of personality than politics. Though in the past, Republicans and Democrats might have thought ill of a new president, never has support been so meager at the outset. The opposition is well deserved.

 Try as one might, it is difficult to look past Mr. Trump’s racist remarks, defiance of the Constitution, ethical conflicts, misogyny, and threats to abandon international alliances. With all this it is impossible to conclude that he is the right person to lead this diverse nation in the face of ever-increasing social and political challenges. This is what is reflected in public opinion. 

It should not be overlooked that some among our neighbors on the South Fork are eager Trump supporters. The East Hampton Republican Committee is to hold a black-tie party tomorrow night at the American Legion Hall in Amagansett to celebrate his ascension to the White House. A question is how, if they say they believe in American values, they could approve of someone who is a such shockingly poor role model and a threat to global stability, the environment, the rule of law and precedent, and even public education.

Are we to take their partisan glee as a full embrace of what Mr. Trump has said and stands for? If so, they should not present themselves as leaders of one of this town’s two major political parties. His views — and his dangerous cabinet picks — should not be so casually endorsed. That some in our community will do so tomorrow is, as Mr. Trump likes to say on Twitter, sad.

In his “state of the town” speech last week, East Hampton Supervisor Larry Cantwell made note of the effort to build a medical center on Pantigo Place. Southampton Hospital envisions an emergency room here, with doctors’ offices and related medical services, as it prepares to abandon its existing location and move to the Stony Brook Southampton campus on County Road 39. Patients and health care responders, especially Montaukers, have for years bemoaned the time it takes to get to Southampton Hospital in emergencies, particularly in summer. While that is a serious concern, we question the location and size chosen for a new facility.

Among the most important considerations is traffic and commercial density. The Pantigo Place property is in a portion of town just outside East Hampton Village that is already showing signs of unwanted sprawl. Adding a massive medical building to the mix would have numerous negative effects. Concerns also have begun to be voiced about the considerable amount of wastewater that would be produced, and how it might affect drinking water.

Important to consider as well is that the site is now used for Little League baseball and would require a change from parkland and conservation status to commercial use — setting a risky precedent. The former Child Development Center of the Hamptons charter school property off Stephen Hand’s Path might be a better location. In justifying the need for an emergency room, the hospital says it serves 17,000 patients from East Hampton a year, a figure that is hardly credible. We suspect that money is a hidden factor. East Hampton’s deep-pocketed donor community, unlike Southampton’s, has not traditionally been a strong supporter of the hospital. It is plausible, therefore, that fund-raising is likely to have played a part in recommending a shiny new facility in more or less the very center of town.

East Hamptoners are sure to welcome an emergency medical center, but at a minimum our elected officials should think again about whether the hospital’s grand plan is really right for the place it has been proposed.