There is irony in Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s recently coming out in favor of free in-state tuition to New York’s public colleges and universities. In an era when his signature 2-percent tax cap is causing school districts to struggle to meet expenses, his support for a higher-education program estimated to cost $160 million in the first year of full implementation is, well, astonishing.

Given Mr. Cuomo’s presumed presidential ambitions, this apparently is not a contradiction for him. He spoke up with a raft of progressive measures almost as swiftly as Hillary Clinton’s defeat became known and the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination opened up. To prevail in the primaries, and possibly in the general election, Mr. Cuomo would have to continue to take steps that speak to a broad set of voters. As the governor of a high-tax Eastern state, he could point to the 2-percent cap as evidence of fiscal discipline. Free college tuition could pay off for him with young voters as well. Indeed, Senator Bernie Sanders, who called for free tuition at public universities nationwide in his primary bid, accompanied Mr. Cuomo as he made the announcement.

State programs already exist for New York’s poorest students. Mr. Cuomo’s idea is to help middle-class families and scholars whose household incomes are between $55,000 and $125,000. As envisioned, the state would step in to fill the gap between other grants or scholarships and the full cost of tuition. He called for the State Legislature to act fast, with the program to be fully implemented by 2019 — conveniently smack in the middle of his expected Demo­cratic primary bid.

The 2-percent tax cap is a bit of a misnomer. What it does is limit the amount by which school districts and other local governments can increase the amount of money raised by taxes for operating costs from one year to the next. This presents little problem for five-member town boards, which vote on their own spending plans. But even with the figure somewhat less than 2 percent in practice, the stakes are much higher for school districts, where voters are asked to approve budgets each year, and a two-thirds majority is required to exceed the cap. Strict austerity is mandated otherwise.

When Mr. Cuomo first proposed the tax cap, his argument was that the hard line on spending would gradually reduce the number of local governments and ultimately save money as property taxes fell. It has not really worked that way; school districts in particular jealously guard their autonomy even in the face of crippling financial pressures, and over the years few school districts have dared ask voters to pierce the cap.

 Mr. Cuomo’s tax cap has turned out to be all stick, no carrot. He has put his hands around the throats of the districts without offering meaningful leadership on state aid, school consolidation, or other cost-saving solutions. It is disappointing to see him support state spending for college students so eagerly while continuing to ignore the fiscal demands of elementary and secondary education. Tuition help is a worthy goal, but Mr. Cuomo must not continue to look past the rest of New York’s educational system.

With East Hampton Village Police Chief Gerard Larsen headed to retirement, a serious question faces the village board about who might replace him. Capt. Michael Tracey is to be appointed acting chief today, but it is not at all clear that he is interested in moving up. An issue is whether the village should seek candidates from among the members of its own force or go farther afield. 

The East Hampton Village Police Department has been a steady operation during Chief Larsen’s time. Misconduct allegations have been few. The department has been open to the press and the public. And it has been able to cope with high-season demands, such as large events, including political fund-raisers. This is due not just to Chief Larsen, but to a dedicated and competent roster of officers and support staff, from which a new chief could probably be drawn.

The argument for going outside the ranks hits at something that has proven difficult not only for police but for various village and town departments: adding ethnic or gender diversity. The village police force is almost entirely white; many of the people who come within its jurisdiction are not. Having a chief who is naturally sensitive to their perceptions could be an asset for community relations. 

Village officials are right to hunt anywhere and everywhere for the best candidate. However, they should not forget to look closely at the existing Police Department ranks, whose members offer proven competency, experience, and all-important local connections.

From an East Hampton perspective a baffling document from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation arrived last week, a draft policy paper designed to encourage  natural, or “living,” shorelines, as opposed to hard structures, for erosion control. 

The policy draft is puzzling in that a preference for so-called soft solutions has long been expressed, and is, in fact, state and local law. The regulations, of course, have been notably ignored, as in the downtown Montauk Army Corps project, which was illegal both in concept and execution. 

For the most part, the proposed guidelines are concerned with bay and estuary shorelines, not high-energy ocean beaches, but they are worrying nontheless. They call for sand replenishment and replacing native vegetation instead of building seawalls or rock revetments. But they still allow for “structural components,” a provision that should be eliminated in the final document. 

Boulder revetments allowed in a state living shoreline policy paper would create challenges for environmental planners working for eastern Long Island governments, where they are for the most part banned. And, as state authorities should know, structural responses to erosion inevitably result in the loss of beaches. Troubling, too, is a section that would allow for looser regulation of the kind of fill material that could be placed on beaches and in restored estuaries. This would have to be tightened and made consistent with town-level regulations.

More favorably, the draft acknowledges climate change and related sea-level rise, calling for a better estimate of possible coastal inundation in years to come and how living shoreline projects must take them into account. But this is contradicted in the details by the allowance for even limited revetments. 

State policy statements like this should include adaptable, living shorelines. However, the core idea must be managed retreat. By promoting structural answers in the coastal zones, the state risks violating any number of existing laws, such as East Hampton Town’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, as well as its own regulations.

A comment period ends on Feb. 8. Interested readers can find the draft at dec.ny.gov.

We have long believed that limiting the size of new and renovated houses was a must if the South Fork’s beloved sense of place was to be protected. In this, we are, we think, joined by many of our friends and neighbors for whom what might be called Hamptonization is an affront. In traditional opposition to limits, of course, are many in the real estate and building professions, who welcome the dollars that maximizing square footage may represent. 

The East Hampton Town Board is to hear views, pro and con, on revisions to the law that determines just how much house is allowed on a given parcel. The proposed changes would cut house sizes by 2 percent, hardly enough to have a discernable effect. 

The problem with the current law is evident in several places. New, bloated-looking houses out of scale with those nearby have appeared in Beach Hampton and Ditch Plain, for example. The Amagansett lanes, which run toward the beach from Main Street, are a distorted caricature of their modest former selves. The town’s 2-percent takeaway is not likely to amount to the loss of even a mudroom on one of them.

More creative ways must be found to regulate the mass impact of residential construction in many neighborhoods despite what promises to be strong opposition in some quarters. This is especially true in erosion-prone areas, where federal rules require houses to be elevated by as much as 14 feet. Coupled with existing allowances for the number of stories, these houses mar views and the landscape itself.

East Hampton Town officials are on the right track in seeking additional limits. Unfortunately, the 2-percent option to be considered this evening in Town Hall will not, in and of itself, be sufficient.

We were excited to learn recently about plans for a small museum focused on paintings of old Long Island which is to be created at the historic Gardiner house on James Lane. The village, using money from the town’s community preservation fund, bought the property in 2014. Since then, an accessory structure has been removed and minor repairs done on the house. 

The museum will be devoted to 19th and early 20th century landscape paintings, many collected over the years by Terry Wallace, who has a gallery here. Funding is to come, in part, from a grant from the Robert David Lion Gardiner Foundation; the East Hampton Historical Society will be the curator.

Considered together with the ongoing restoration of the Thomas Moran house and studio on Main Street, more or less diagonally across Town Pond, the new museum will expand the cultural heritage of the village.

East Hampton has long been thought of as a birthplace of the Abstract Expressionist movement, what with such massive figures as Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning having done some of their most important work at their studios in Springs. Moran, however, and some of the lesser-known painters who came before the Ab-Ex giants, are significant, too. The landscape museum will help us all have a better understanding and appreciation of this area’s artistic legacy.

East Hampton Town officials, as well as residents of Windmill Lane and the surrounding area of Amagansett, are hoping to buy about 30 acres of farmland from the Bistrian family despite a more-than $10 million difference between what the town and the family believe the land is worth. 

Spread over 10 separate parcels, the site is a bucolic backdrop to the hamlet’s retail center. Best seen from the parking lot north of Main Street, the land has in recent years been planted with corn and other crops. There is some dispute between the town and the family about an access that so far exists only on paper; if opened and paved, it would have an undesirable impact on the residents of Windmill Lane. The Bistrians apparently own a narrow strip off Windmill Lane that could be used as a driveway to at least one of the lots as well.

Reportedly, the town has offered a lump $22 million for all the parcels. The family has rejected that as far too low, saying its own appraisal came in at $35 million. Who has the correct number is hard to say, but by way of comparison, in 2014 the owners of the 19-acre 555 Montauk Highway property also in Amaganset took $10 million from the town to walk away from their plan for a luxury senior citizens village.

The Bistrians, whose many businesses have over the years grown handsomely from East Hampton’s building booms, have profited well, from outside appearances. It is their right to look out for the family’s best benefit, but when real estate values here are inflated beyond reason by outside forces, such as Wall Street bonuses and foreign investment, it is disappointing to see such longtime members of the community refusing to act for the greater good by agreeing to what appears a fair offer.

There is a tradition here of people doing the right thing for the land and for their neighbors. The late Deborah Light, for example, simply gave hundreds of acres of Amagansett farmland to the Peconic Land Trust; she was one for whom preservation was a priority. And there are many others who have been happy to take what the town’s appraisers said was fair value for property bought using the community preservation fund. There is no rule that everyone has to be as charitable, but it is a noble cause, and those who do so join a proud tradition.

East Hampton Town should not cave in. The center of Amagansett would not be a disastrous location for additional development. The Bistrians’ claim about the number of houses that could be built on the site seems to be significantly overstated. East Hampton Town requires that 70 percent of high-quality farmland be set aside, which could be a hurdle should the family seek to reconfigure the properties in a way that would attract developers of luxury housing. Ultimately, the impact of houses there might be not all that significant.

The issue is that the town should not be suckered into overpaying, despite public pressure. To do so would be to tie up too much of the community preservation fund on a single purchase at a time when there are plenty of other priorities for the money. This may be one that the town has to let slip away.

Friday’s devastating fire in Sag Harbor did more than destroy several buildings, including a beloved, if fusty, cinema lobby and facade, it struck at the very heart of the village’s identity. It also proved resilience and compassion among residents and business owners as well as the wider South Fork community.  

Sixteen fire departments and emergency medical services from Montauk to Eastport and Flanders and Shelter Island were called to take part in freezing weather or to stand by in others’ firehouses, and local and county officials came to see what they could do to help. Fund-raising for two men who lost everything in an apartment they shared and shopkeepers’ understanding about their loss of Christmas revenue proved compassion and resilience. The South Fork is blessed to have men and women such as these. 

As for the cinema, to call its Art Deco “Sag Harbor” sign iconic would be an understatement. It is difficult to imagine the village without that warm, welcoming light at night or as the backdrop to thousands upon thousands of visitors’ snapshots by day. In an age of dwindling art-movie houses, it was a source of pride in Sag Harbor’s literary tradition that so quirky a venue had survived. 

Credit for this is not due to audiences, which could be thin at times, but to the cinema’s owner, Gerry Mallow. Mr. Mallow has at various times sought to sell the place, which he bought in 1979, but has preferred to keep its ever-eclectic selection of films coming to the screen. We hear that a group of local moviegoers had been talking with him about a purchase, and we share the wish that it can be restored. The other buildings damaged or destroyed are sure to be rebuilt, and we hope that the “Sag Harbor” sign will rise again.

Back in the 1970s when the East End towns and Suffolk County began paying the owners of farmland hefty sums in exchange for forgoing ever having any houses on the land, no one could imagine the changes in South Fork real estate that were to come. Today, some of these agricultural reserves are used, not for farming, but for lawns, stables, and low-property tax annexes for the wealthy. These uses are contrary to the original intention of the preservation programs, but are legal because the development rights deals crafted years ago did not require that the land be kept in crop production.

The East Hampton Town Board heard public comment last week on its plan to offer landowners additional money to keep the farms as farmland. Prompted by the Peconic Land Trust and others, Southampton Town recently adopted a program to pay for what is clunkily called enhanced development rights to target nearly all non-food production uses.

East Hampton Town’s plan could be a little more forgiving. Prompted by Alex Balsam, a co-owner of Balsam Farms in Amagansett and an attorney, the board appears to look favorably on a less-restrictive approach, allowing farmers greater latitude than in Southampton for what structures would be permitted. Balsam Farm’s ever-growing retail operation on Town Lane might be considered an example of what should not be allowed, and the board should be skeptical of Mr. Balsam’s advice. It should be noted that Mr. Balsam is chairman of the town’s agricultural advisory committee and is seeking permits for a large barn on a preserved property on Long Lane in East Hampton, for which one of the ideas is a beer brewery.

Farmers need flexibility, they say, to survive on the South Fork. That may be true, but so, too, do many other categories of local business. Exactly why farmers should expect special treatment has not been made adequately clear. To the extent that such flexibilty on how farmland is used includes sprawling agro-entertainment operations, like Hank’s Pumpkin Town in Water Mill or the North Fork’s traffic-tangling wine tasting scene, it is clear that restrictions are a must.

It is safe to say that when the original development rights programs were created, public support was for preserving open space and views as much as for crop production. Our position is that the town should go ahead with a new plan to make money available to assure that farmland is for farms. While flexibility might be built into the law to provide special permission for a necessary barn or other structure, what it should not mean is that anything goes.

Press time at The Star comes too early to allow thoughtful comment on Tuesday's results, at least without thoroughly disaffecting the otherwise jolly workers at the plant where the paper is printed.

It took an enormous amount of research and thinking on the part of every member of the editorial staff to produce the election supplement in last week's paper, as well as extra time and effort in photography and production.

We do it as a public service. It isn't easy, unless you are a died-in-the-wool partisan, to weigh the campaign rhetoric or to balance the accusations flung around. The tighter the races the more important it is for a community newspaper to help voters wade through the highfalutin promises and the muck.

Over the years, The Star has developed an understanding with its readers. They are able to trust the editorial "we," the voice with which opinions are expressed, for its seriousness and sincerity, and to draw their own conclusions from ours.

This is the role of responsible journalism and we are proud to try to fulfill it.

Voters in two school districts will let their boards of education know what they think about plans for major projects next week. Although some residents argued that voting was inappropriate at this time of year, the votes, which are expected to be decisive, are scheduled for Tuesday in Bridgehampton and Wednesday in Sag Harbor. 

The Bridgehampton School was built in 1939 and is the only local school building that has never had a major renovation. Along with Shelter Island, the district is rare because it educates students from kindergarten through 12th grade. To do so it has relied on portable classrooms, which are now nearing the end of their practical lifespan. Although the student population remains small, it has grown by 35 percent in the last three years.

In order to provide the courses mandated by the state and the activities its diverse student population deserves, independent study takes place in a hallway. Corrosion is evident in the sole science lab, which houses physics, earth science, biology, and chemistry. And the robotics and computer lab in the basement is not accessible to the handicapped. Students study and do research in the library, but they also take classes in art and sewing there. Most of the second-floor classrooms have a capacity for 12 to 16 high school students while 18 or more are in the elementary grades now and expected to move up. The state has given the district a waiver so that its championship Killer Bees basketball team can play in a gymnasium that doubles as an auditorium, with the stage a fitness and weight-lifting room and the equipment moved when the drama club has a production. 

The Bridgehampton School Board has been forthright in going to voters, re-evaluating the amount needed — $24.7 million — and increasing estimates of what it will cost to borrow the money. After announcing different bonding details earlier in the process, it decided to issue bonds over 20 years rather than 15 and announced the interest rate would be 3.5 percent rather than 2 percent.

Bridgehampton faced the elimination of the high-school grades and sending students in those grades elsewhere in 2009, when three residents who were in favor of doing so ran for the board, but the community voted overwhelmingly to keep high school students at home. The time has come to bring the school into the 21st century by approving the renovation plans. 

The issue in Sag Harbor is about the renovation of the athletic field, which may sound easier for voters to grapple with, but, unlike in Bridgehampton, where a citizens committee has had moderate objection, the proposal has caused intense division. 

Voters had approved $1.6 million for the installation of synthetic turf on the fields in 2013, but a delay in state approval put the project on hold. In the interim, the cost went up and the district is now asking permission to use $365,000 from its capital reserves for the installation. The intervening years brought concerns about the health effects of the toxic materials used in manufacturing the turf to the public’s attention, however. 

The turf field would be used by all grades at Pierson Middle and High School for gym classes and by the field hockey, soccer, and junior varsity and middle school baseball and softball teams, not to mention other student activities. The district plans to use CoolFill, a coating of the crumb rubber pieces of which the turf is made that reflects heat, rather than absorbs it, and moderates the turf’s temperature.

Nevertheless, last week both the Sag Harbor Elementary School PTA and Pierson Middle and High School Parent Teacher Student Association voted against the additional money, in effect ruling against artificial turf.

The sticking point was the safety of the material, which has an infill made of recycled tires. According to the website of Grassroots Environmental Education, based in Port Washington, which made a presentation at a recent forum, “artificial turf fields are typically filled with up to 10 tons of ground-up truck and automobile tires. This recycled rubber contains high levels of toxic substances which prohibit its disposal in landfills.” Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, zinc, along with acetone, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene and xylene, and phthalates were identified.

Those who favor the use of artificial turf have good intentions. They see it as an investment in a long-term installation that will keep players out of the mud. But the parent organizations’ decisive vote against it is persuasive. Sag Harborites would be right to ask for natural grass.