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.

Time was, during the weeks after Labor Day, the leaves magically changed into technicolor and blew down Main Street in a scratchy buzz, but otherwise there was mostly silence.

Although that blessed time is still celebrated in certain ways — champagne brunches on the beach in anticipation of the mass exodus come to mind — fewer people are actually leaving, opting instead to stay put for most of the year or at least 52 weekends. Many are refugees from the city and the suburbs who are attracted to a quieter, yet cultured life. Families, artists, writers, foodies, and other creative types are no longer transients but fully rooted in the year-round landscape.

In addition to peace and quiet, many full-timers are here for the artistic and cultural attractions. In the past few years, longtime museums and venues like Guild Hall and the Parrish Art Museum have expanded year-round programs, new institutions such as the Southampton Arts Center have begun contributing their own full schedules, and the Bay Street Theater has gone from mostly seasonal offerings to live events throughout the off-season.

Fall arts and music festivals have grown out of successful local events, including Sag Harbor’s American Music Festival and Southampton’s SeptemberFest. Throw in the annual Hamptons International Film Festival, and some might even say the South Fork has an arts scene like that of a small city.

What has been called the shoulder season, the first few weeks before and after summer, has been padded all the way through the holidays. It then emerges again, like the groundhog, on or about Presidents and Valentine’s Day weekends.

A quick peek at the region’s cultural calendars shows staged plays and readings, gallery and museum openings, comedy shows, film screenings, theater and opera simulcasts, book talks and lectures, a fully evolved music scene, and so much more.

You say there is nothing to do in the fall and winter? You’re not looking hard enough.

A proposition appearing on the back of Tuesday’s ballot that would add 20 years to the life of the community preservation fund and allow up to 20 percent of its future income to be used for water quality projects is almost sure to get a majority of “yes” votes. Multiple advocates have pushed hard for the measure, and many voters will have heard only that it will advance environmental protection and want to sign on.

Assuming that the proposition will be approved, it now falls to its supporters, both in and out of government, to do what they should have done in the first place — get the details right. 

East Hampton Town, having been burned once by vague language in the enabling preservation fund law, should have been way more rigorous this time around. If the water program is allowed to operate as written, the costly projects that could be provided for under the proposition are an invitation to misuse and corruption. Environmental groups, excited about the prospect of millions of dollars to further their goals, have been blindly willing to look past the vague proposal’s shortcomings.

It is likely that some of its backers have glimpsed problems with the proposition but agreed to rush, calculating that aligning the vote with an expected high turnout for the presidential election would assure its chances of passing. Were it scheduled in a midterm election year, its prospects might have been diminished. Tying the water quality question to the extension of the fund for its original purposes was another way to assure its approval. In fairness to the public and for the quality of the debate, the issues should have been the subject of separate referendums.

After Tuesday, the lack of clear definition of what can and cannot be done in the law must be remedied right away. 

A “no” vote on Proposition 1 would be a way to warn officials and the environmental community that they still have a great deal of work to do to assure that the public’s money is spent properly and does not spur excessive development while at the same time sharply cutting funding for land acquisition.

In the race for the New York First Congressional District seat in the House of Representatives, we support Anna Throne-Holst. Given the strong support her opponent, David Calone, had in the Democratic primary among those in local office, she may not be an ideal candidate, but she remains a far better potential representative than the incumbent, Lee Zeldin. 

Chief among our problems with Mr. Zeldin is his early backing of Donald Trump for president. Mr. Trump’s views are far beyond majority Republican opinion on eastern Long Island. That Mr. Zeldin continues to embrace him suggests that he is likewise out of step. 

Mr. Zeldin’s opposition to abortion rights and meaningful gun control demonstrates this, and he has only lately begun to mellow earlier skepticism regarding climate change. He goes even further, however, in stating actual support for Mr. Trump, a bigot and self-absorbed tax cheat. As a congressman, of all people, he must put the United States’ exemplary democracy above craven politics, as have many Republicans of conscience.

Voters should not sit out this contest or mistakenly believe that the skill of Mr. Zeldin’s campaign staff in getting him free media attention through many personal appearances here and on cable news programs indicates real accomplishment. 

Those who dislike much of what Mr. Trump has said or done but still say they will vote for him misunderstand the fundamental nature of the American system of checks and balances. An extremist, Mr. Trump cannot be expected to bring sanity to governance.

Unfortunately, in standing with Mr. Trump, Mr. Zeldin also stands for racism, hatred, and sexual assault, none of which is acceptable and all of which disqualify him, in our view, for another term. 

East Hampton Town and Southampton Hospital are moving quickly toward breaking ground on a emergency-care facility, possibly off Pantigo Road just east of Town Hall. Many questions remain, and we are concerned that in the eagerness to get moving, some of the numbers used to justify the roughly $40 million project are being overstated. A hospital adjunct of some kind appears necessary within the town’s borders, especially since Southampton Hospital may be relocated westward in a few years to a new site on County Road 39.

For East Hampton’s ambulance services, a treatment center closer by makes a lot of sense. Even now, a routine trip to the Southampton emergency room takes a considerable amount of time. During the peak season, ambulances frequently have to return east after an emergency with lights flashing and sirens blaring in order to get to another call. Being able to turn an ambulance around at an East Hampton facility and put it back in service awaiting another emergency could mean the difference between life and death.

Location is a question. The hospital administration prefers the town’s 4.5-acre ball field on Pantigo Place over a much larger town-owned property on Stephen Hand’s Path. Whichever site is chosen, it is highly likely that a new traffic light on Montauk Highway will have to be installed. A light controlling the entrance and exit at Pantigo Place may be less disruptive of through traffic, though this would have to be studied closely before anyone could say for sure. 

For patients from Montauk, Springs, and Amagansett, whether going to the new emergency facility in an ambulance or getting there by other means, the Pantigo Place location would be better. It also is important to consider our summer visitors, many of whom stay in motels and other accommodations on Napeague and in Montauk. According to Suffolk County figures, there were beds for about 11,400 motel and hotel guests in East Hampton Town in 2010 — most of them from Amagansett east — an astonishing figure with obvious implications for first responders.

Other numbers warrant more clarity. The hospital has proposed eventually having a 64,000-square-foot building, which would make it among the largest structures in East Hampton Town. Does it really need to be that large? Maybe. Another startling statistic offered by the hospital is 17,000, the number of patient visits to the hospital originating from East Hampton annually, which needs a bit more explanation. It ought to be made clear just how many of those thousands of visits would be handled at a new site and how many would still require going to the hospital in Southampton. It is not clear at this point how either the patient or building plan numbers were arrived at and whether they justify the calculations that led to the East Hampton plan.

Another concern is that the Pantigo Place property is adjacent to a Suffolk County Water Authority well and water tower. What the environmental impact would be of such a massive facility and whether sewage treatment would be adequate to keep chemical and pharmaceutical contamination from reaching drinking or surface waters must be studied.

A $10 million promise of a state grant puts pressure on East Hampton Town and the hospital to get moving on construction as soon as possible. However, making sure the facility is the right size, built in the best location, and would result in only minimal ecological harm should take precedence over haste.

As the year draws to a close, it is worth reflecting on the ongoing success of the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Fund in East Hampton Town. As of this week — and with several deals pending — money from a 2-percent tax on most real estate transactions had saved 2,063 acres of land from development. The money went for environmentally significant parcels as well as historic sites and properties that provided public access, recreational opportunities, and helped link the town’s growing woodland trail system. 

In November, voters here approved extending the 2-percent tax until 2050 and okayed a measure to allow up to 20 percent of future preservation fund income to be spent on water protection measures other than straight-up land acquisition. These could include rebates to help homeowners replace failing septic systems, which leach contaminants into ponds, bays, and harbors. 

In 2014, the fund brought in a record $32.3 million. With two months left before the final figure for this year is known, the town is on track to pull in somewhere upward of $27 million; in 2015 the year-end total was just under $29 million. Its low point in the past decade came in 2009, when a mere $10.4 million was banked.

The fund has come a long way since the first acquisition, in 1999, but in many ways the goals of the program remain unchanged. That year, the town bought a half-acre on the Sammy’s Beach side of Three Mile Harbor from John and Betty Ulrich for $145,000. The Ulrichs wanted to build a house on a lot that was mostly a saltwater wetland, but the zoning board of appeals did not approve it. Among the problems with the property were that it did not have its own source of potable water. The Ulrichs sought the board’s approval for a well on a property on the other side of Sammy’s Beach Road. Among the zoning board members apparently favoring its public acquisition were Jay Schneiderman, who is now Southampton Town supervisor, and Peter Van Scoyoc, now a member of the East Hampton Town Board.

Watershed protection and its improvement are today still at the top of the priority list for the people who oversee East Hampton Town’s preservation fund. Inner harbor sites, like the one bought from the Ulrichs in 1999, or the roughly 40 properties purchased in a multiyear effort to improve Lake Montauk, are highly desirable. 

Though we remain concerned about the potential for abuse of money for water quality projects, over all, the preservation fund has been an unqualified success, and its extension is good news. We look forward to more and bigger purchases using this powerful program in 2017.

Sea level rise is the single greatest long-term threat to eastern Long Island, yet it is one that our towns and villages are least able to combat for practical and political reasons. 

The problems already confronting property owners and local officials are immense. In many places on the South Fork, beaches are shifting over time at a foot or more a year. This has put even some houses and other structures that were built well back from the water in the 1970s right on the beach today.

Much of the erosion is seen on the bay and Block Island Sound, rather than at the ocean. In bulkheaded parts of Springs, Amagansett, Lazy Point, and on the north side of Montauk, at Soundview from Montauk Harbor to Captain Kidd’s Path, there no longer are passable beaches. The next big trouble spot may be west of Shadmoor State Park in Montauk, where a number of houses loom on a bluff only one or two big storms away from disaster. Then there is downtown Montauk, where a $9 million Army Corps of Engineers project to save a row of motels and private residences may soon be bolstered by a far more expensive effort to pump sand there from offshore.

If that isn’t enough bad news, consider the ecological effects of rising seas, particularly in estuaries. In many places vital marsh habitats cannot migrate landward because they are hemmed in by houses. Additional losses among of these important breeding and feeding places would have dire effects on wildlife. The cause, scientists agree, is climate change, the result of human activity.

Any discussion of climate change cannot ignore Donald Trump and the fact that the president-elect described it as a Chinese hoax and has chosen a notorious climate change denier to lead his remake of the Environmental Protection Agency. This poses a grave threat to international emissions control initiatives, as well as to leadership from Washington on responsive coastal policy. A more forward-thinking president might shift responsibility away from the armor-first Army Corps of Engineers, for example.

Doubts from the top could also have a chilling effect on educators, who might water-down the message that warming is human-caused, helping create an uninformed electorate unlikely to pressure officials to take steps to reverse current climate trends.

The news is not all bad, however. New York is among a group of states taking on pollution from power plants on their own through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The Long Island Power Authority may soon greenlight an offshore wind farm that is expected to generate enough electricity for 50,000 houses, and East Hampton Town has set a goal of meeting all its power needs from renewable sources by 2030. Individual homeowners also can take steps to reduce consumption by switching to renewable energy.

Still, the president and Congress have an essential role in setting the nation’s climate policy. If Mr. Trump’s early signs are an indication of what will be his administration’s approach to climate change, bleak days are ahead.

As to the idea that climate change is a hoax, with consensus among every kind of organization from the National Academy of the Sciences to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to major oil companies including BP and Shell accepting anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically supported, it is impossible to take the armchair protests of the deniers seriously. They should be given no credence, especially from the White House.

The Maidstone Club has at last, it seems, gone too far, what with a spate of recent projects including a massive new irrigation system and with a proposal now for a new bridge over an upper reach of Hook Pond. The bridge has drawn the attention of no less formidable opponents than the East Hampton Ladies Village Improvement Society’s landmarks and nature trail committees, as well as well-known local environmentalists.

The question is why. The club’s representatives have told East Hampton Village that safety is paramount. We are not buying it — and neither should the village. Pedestrians, golf carts, the club’s greens keepers, and passing motor vehicles have co-existed for years on Dunemere Lane. The village lowered the speed limit there to 25 miles an hour relatively recently, and police frequently hide their patrol cars nearby to catch those who might scoff that particular law. 

Similarly, the club got along just fine since its founding in 1891 — and the first golf rounds three years later — without a major irrigation system. That it now needs to pump water from underground to spread on its fairways and greens has never been adequately explained. Taken with the request for the bridge, it is fair to suspect that something may be afoot.

By itself, the bridge, as laid out for the village zoning board, seems a bit much. It would be 352 feet long and made of steel and timbers, resting on 42 pilings driven into the mud. Sited to the north of an existing vehicle bridge, it would bisect the Hook Pond dreen — a habitat where ducks, swans, herons, and grebes often feed and aquatic turtles are seen from time to time — and destroy the scenic vista.

Among the standards that the zoning board is supposed to consider when granting variances is whether an applicant can solve a perceived problem by another means and whether the hardship for which relief is sought is self-created. Given that there has been golf at the club for more than a century, with players and employees sharing the existing Dunemere Lane crossing, and that the impact of the new bridge on the pond and surrounding wetlands would be substantial, there can be no reasonable basis for the board to approve the project.

“Oh, but we have been such a good neighbor,” the club’s representatives say. Well, tell that to the residents who used to be able to take an off-season stroll along the golf course or fish from one of its existing bridges who are now rudely chased away.

If there is something the club is not telling the board — perhaps that it hopes to host large-scale professional golfing events — it needs to come clean. And those officials and village consultants who may be willing to show deference to the Maidstone’s wealthy members instead of the public or the environment should think again about whose interests they are really supposed to represent.

The East Hampton School Board should push administrators and the district’s architects to look for a better solution for student transportation than the proposed $5 million bus barn planned for high school property near Cedar Street. The proposed maintenance building, fuel pumps, and parking have been gaining opposition almost by the day. It should be heeded.

Admitting that the plan would lead to noise problems for neighbors, the district’s architect has said that the new building could serve as a sound buffer for people with houses nearby. And he said that trees, shrubs, and a fence would screen it from view. Another indication of the Cedar Street site being inappropriate is that, because of the proximity to houses, the parking area would be laid out to avoid buses backing up, cutting down on beeping noises when they otherwise would shift into reverse. None of this bodes well. When officials start speaking of acoustic blocks, driving buses only forward, and cutting off sightlines with shrubs, the game is already lost. 

The district’s student transportation headaches go back a decade, when problems with the service provided by a private company prompted the school board to take over. Shortly before the school year was to begin in September 2006, the board held an emergency meeting and decided not to seek bids from other companies, instead opting to rent buses, hire drivers, and go it alone. Leonard Schaefer, who had provided bus service for the district for many years, complained that he had been forced out of business because the district lured away drivers with offers of higher pay.

Since then, the district has been in the transportation business, leasing the former Schaefer property on Route 114 for its buses. Recently, however, the property was sold, and the district has use of it guaranteed only until next fall.

In 2010 the board was badly rebuffed by voters in a bid to buy vacant industrial property on King Street for a bus facility. At the time, Raymond Gaultieri, the school superintendent, warned that should the King Street deal fall through, a Cedar Street site was the likely alternative. Mr. Gaultieri resigned to take a job in Pennsylvania the following summer.

The board now believes that moving everything onto its own property once and for all is the best way to go. The site has been chosen and the board seems ready to seek funding through a referendum. 

What the board has not done is seek bids from private companies to once again provide the needed services. This would not only show respect for the neighbors’ concerns, but might even lower costs. The district, and taxpayers, would be able to compare the estimated cost of issuing bonds and paying interest over a period of time with the costs of private services.

“We’re going into the bus business,” Mr. Gaultieri declared in 2010. The time may have come to reverse course.

Two recent bits of news concerning the area’s citizens advisory committees have further added to our sense that the concept needs a little refining. Instances involving the Amagansett and Bridgehampton groups, while unrelated, indicate that they could be stepping beyond their intended role.

Citizens committees were devised some years ago as a means for residents to speak about neighborhood concerns in an informal setting. The goal was to hash out truly grassroots opinion, then relay their ideas to the respective town boards; in many cases, a supervisor or board member would be on hand at their meetings. In some recent cases, however, these committees have become unelected influencers of policy, sometimes improperly communicating with their towns’ planning and zoning boards and meddling in controversies. 

In Amagansett the hamlet’s citizens advisory committee appears poised to have a deciding say on how town-owned property on Montauk Highway will be used. The town bought the parcel, called 555 or Ocean View Farm, using the community preservation fund two years ago. Proposals from private entities for growing crops there or other uses are expected soon. The town board would have to sign off on any deal, but it appears to be shirking its responsibility by offering the committee a decision-making role. 

In Bridgehampton, town planners solicited the citizens committee’s opinion on a commercial expansion, and the committee offered one in a voice vote to be followed with a letter. Then, when the expected letter did not arrive, holding up a ruling on the pending application, it turned out that the citizens committee’s shadowy steering committee had changed the group’s position. That the planners were relying on a definitive view from an essentially ad-hoc group was a mistake. It was made doubly so when the membership’s decision was apparently overruled by an informal leadership subset.

In our view, citizens advisory committees, if they are to persist, should be just that — purely advisory.