Election Day might seem a way off, but the deadline to register to vote is just about a month away, on Oct. 14. Perhaps the easiest way to get the registration process started is by phone. The New York State Board of Elections has a hotline, 800-FOR-VOTE, which takes requests for applications that are sent by mail. Simple, too, is the State Department of Motor Vehicles’ website, which has a page where those with New York driver’s licenses, learner’s permits, or non-driver IDs can sign up to vote as long as they provide the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. Libraries and local government offices frequently will have application forms on hand as well.

Another option comes from the League of Women Voters of the Hamptons, which will hold voter sign-ups at post offices from Westhampton to Montauk and on the North Fork on Sept. 27. Registration forms and other election material will be available, as will advice for those who need help with the paperwork. Absentee ballot applications must be mailed by Nov. 1.

With a close race on Nov. 8 between Representative Lee Zeldin and his challenger, Anna Throne-Holst, every South Fork vote and every voter will count. Also of note locally this year is that Hillary Clinton, who represented New York in the Senate and vacationed in East Hampton or Amagansett for quite a few seasons, will top the Democratic ticket as the first female candidate for president on a major political party line. 

Those who dislike Mrs. Clinton may be eager to select someone else, be it Donald Trump, the Libertarian candidate, or even Bernie Sanders as a write-in candidate. Whatever your point of view, whether left, right, or center, the election is going to be exciting, and important. Don’t let missing the Oct. 14 deadline to register stop you from casting your vote.

Aviation business owners, along with a number of pilots, have long insisted that the true agenda of anti-noise activists was to shut down East Hampton Airport. Less-excitable observers have acknowledged the danger of not responding to community concerns. Some have warned of a so-called nuclear option: A fear that if the town and Federal Aviation Administration did not deal with noise, public pressure could build to a level where closing the airport seemed the only choice. 

Now, for some residents at least, that point has been reached. East Hampton and the surrounding communities may not yet have reached the same point as a handful of activists, but that day could come. 

For East Hampton Airport to endure, town officials, pilots, and aviation interests alike must recognize that they must take concerns about noise much more seriously.

It bears reminding the helicopter companies, their paying passengers, and others, that it would only take a majority vote of the five-member town board to begin the process by which the runways were torn up and the property converted to some other purpose. To be sure, there would be years of litigation and studies about how local businesses would be hurt, but in the end, closing the airport could actually happen. And it would be the refusal of airport users and elected officials to find meaningful ways to deal with noise that would make it so. 

Pilots’ groups are now saying, “I told you so.” But, if you think about it, their attempts to block noise controls have been part of the problem for years. Today, as the full impact of their decades-long effort to halt effective solutions is finally being understood, a cataclysmic result might lie ahead.

Just what the point of the airport is in today’s world is a good question. It is an important one, too, and whether or not one agrees with the new Say No to KHTO group (KHTO being the airport’s official shorthand), it is something that bears examining. Over the weekend, after news of the call to tear up the tarmac broke, we heard conversation from reasonable people questioning just what the point was of East Hampton’s having an airport.

A modest airport might have made sense for East Hampton when planning for it began during the Great Depression. Today, serving largely as a luxury option for the elite, its purpose is less easy to define. 

Aside from the jobs it creates, the airport does relatively little for most residents. Its value for emergency evacuations is limited, for example — the county’s medevac helicopters have a range of other options, where they land very frequently. And only the very richest can use the facility — even owning a single-engine aircraft is a luxury available only to the wealthier portions of society. 

Those who travel here by helicopter charter are richer still, and those who arrive by Gulfstream jet have means or corporate backing beyond that. It is only because of a quiet tradition here of deference to the moneyed that the airport has been allowed to grow and operate as it has — at the cost of peace and quiet of those who live or vacation under its flight paths. 

Now, as the separation between the wealthiest and the rest of society grows ever wider, the facility points to a bigger question, one about the nature of government and in whose interest those in power should act — clearly and to this point it has not been the majority of North and South Fork residents.

It is not all that difficult to imagine a day when the close-the-place vote put three people sympathetic to their cause on the town board. Hardened positions of the past brought East Hampton Airport to this current tipping point. Assuring that it remains in operation will require greater flexibility than has so far been demonstrated among all concerned.

Drivers passing the former East Hampton Bowl property on Montauk Highway have been doing double takes in recent days as the steel frame for a hulking new building was erected nearly atop the roadway. According to East Hampton Village, the structure is to be leased to CVS, the pharmacy chain, and meets all zoning requirements. Expect things to look even worse as the frame is sheathed and an approved 24-foot-long illuminated corporate sign goes up.

We would have hoped that in the wake of the HomeGoods store in Wainscott, a debacle if ever there was one, village officials might have taken a look at the law and asked themselves whether changes were necessary. At least East Hampton Town may be on a path toward changes that would restrain future big-box store developers in the parts of Wainscott under its jurisdiction and other commercial areas. 

The new CVS store is the product of good intentions to be sure. Years ago, zoning laws were written to place parking at the rear of new commercial construction in both the village and town. This was intended to avoid what was known as strip-zoning, in which streetscapes become barren swaths of asphalt and freestanding signs, with rows of businesses constructed at some distance off in the rear. As a tradeoff perhaps, property owners were allowed to jam their structures nearly up to the property lines, with sheer, vertical walls extending high. 

Design failures like HomeGoods and the new CVS, which juts much farther out toward the roadway than its neighboring buildings and makes that portion of Montauk Highway canyon-like, are the result. It is so bad that at least one village official, shocked after the beams went up, asked the Building Department whether the building had been properly sited. It had been, and it was perfectly legal. The new CVS runs the risk of devaluing the Red Horse complex across the street by creating a significant aesthetic conflict as well as traffic tie-ups and additional congestion.

What has to happen now mirrors to some degree the initiative under way in the town to understand what is possible in the hamlet centers under current zoning. East Hampton Village must take a hard look at where additional CVS-style boxes could be built and move rapidly to make future ones impossible.

Stuart Vorpahl, who died in January, used to talk a good bit and with great common sense about the rights of East Hampton residents. Among them was the free use of the beaches, as spelled out in the Dongan Patent, a Colonial-era agreement.

Were Stuart alive today, he might be appalled by the East Hampton Town Trustees, who have been scuttling away crab-like, and as fast as possible, from what he believed. In a recent dispute among neighbors of the Driftwood Shores development in Springs, the trustees seemed more interested in figuring out who on paper “owned” a portion of beach than in upholding the centuries-old patent, which has been understood to guarantee townspeople the right of passage and other uses of the beach.

Similarly, the East Hampton Town Board has signaled that it, too, believes ownership trumps tradition in having looked to condemn portions of the Napeague oceanfront so that trucks can continue to park there in the summer. It would seem to us, and to Mr. Vorpahl, we believe, that the right was sacrosanct no matter what a contemporary title document might claim.

Time was when it was universally understood that the seaward boundaries of almost all properties in town were the beach-grass line, regardless of modern-day surveys claiming otherwise. Now the trustees and Town Hall seem to believe that whatever is stated on landowners’ paperwork is the final word, the Dongan Patent be damned. Stuart would be appalled. 

To some degree, our elected officials are being influenced by the courts in tilting toward explicit beach ownership boundaries, but in doing so they are setting a risky precedent. They may be unintentionally siding with property owners by considering current title documents and surveys the determining factor. If so, this could carry a high cost — ultimately limiting the public’s access to areas clearly owned and under the control of local government. 

Mr. Vorpahl’s message over the years was clear and consistent: Fight for all of the beaches. Officials should continue to keep that in mind now that he is gone.

Americans are used by now to the too-fast-to-think ecosystem that is Twitter, the online forum in which posts are limited to 140 characters and in which the like-minded essentially echo one another in endless spirals of wit, while antagonists go for sharp rejoinders. Twitter is also a place where politicians sometimes lay bare their odder passing thoughts. Such was the case on Monday when Representative Lee Zeldin made an almost incomprehensible comment following the capture of the man suspected of the recent Manhattan bombing. In its entirety, Mr. Zeldin wrote, “Suspect in custody. You are welcome, Colin Kaepernick.”

Mr. Kaepernick is the San Francisco 49ers football quarterback who has declined to stand for the national anthem in protest of police shootings of people of color. Figuring out exactly what Mr. Zeldin meant by his post is difficult; even he probably does not know. That did not stop plenty of people from going to Twitter to turn his point around, however.

One reaction read, “13-year-old Tyre King shot down by police from behind in cold blood. Thanks, Lee Zeldin.” Others made the point that Ahmed Khan Rahami, the terror suspect, was taken alive, unlike the many black, unarmed Americans killed by police. Another Twitter user offered “. . . if only Kaepernick had stood for the anthem these past two weeks, we could have caught the terrorist three hours sooner probably.”

Mr. Zeldin’s outburst mirrors the recurring bombast on Twitter from Donald Trump, who has made a campaign out of this kind of drivel. The comment can be heard as a kind of racist code, intended to speak directly to an embittered, paranoid fringe among First Congressional District voters. In a statement, Mr. Zeldin subsequently defended his post, saying, “I unapologetically love our country and our heroes who defend us. I’m insulted and disgusted when someone refuses to say the pledge or stand for the national anthem.” 

We have previously criticized Mr. Zeldin for jumping on the Trump bandwagon and called him unfit to continue to serve in Congress. He has shown that to be the case once again.

East Hampton Town Highway Superintendent Steve Lynch has quietly been doing a very good job since taking on the job in 2012. But one thing he should be more aggressive about is the cordoning off of public roadsides by private property owners.

Ostensibly, the rows of stakes, and sometimes rope, are placed to protect well-tended grass from the wheels of passing vehicles. Given the substantial cost involved in terms of time — and more realistically landscapers’ invoices — one can sympathize with the impulse. The thing is, it is wrong and potentially dangerous.

Time and again we have seen runners and pedestrians remain in the roadway rather than step onto a staked-off grass apron. A couple of bad places that have caught our notice are on Sayre’s Path in Wainscott and at the east end of Further Lane in Amagansett. Also on Further Lane, some time ago the town allowed a property owner to raise the side of the road by more than a foot, eliminating the shoulder and creating a precipitous little cliff impossible for a bicyclist to climb in an urgent situation.

As far as we can tell, the roadside stakes are illegal and should not be tolerated. That they are tacitly allowed through inaction is wrong and speaks to what might appear to be improper kowtowing to mostly wealthy property owners at the expense of the rest of us.

Also on the subject of roadsides, East Hampton Town officials need to reconsider the approach to so-called temporary signs. Placards announcing builders’ names and subcontractors’ firms and architects looking to drum up a little more business are far too many, and they are allowed to remain up far longer than the limits imposed in the town code. Frankly, the rules regarding size and how long signs of this kind can remain in view are impossible for the town to enforce, which means the only realistic solution is for them to be banned entirely. 

Notable among the offending signs are those that are not put in front of construction sites at all but are set out on a contractor’s own property, in effect becoming a small billboard not unlike those the town banned decades ago. Come on, East Hampton Town, if we know who these folks are, you certainly should, too. And we would lump in the real estate “for sale” signs that stay up until a place is sold, which in some cases means for years.

We believe any harmful effects on businesses of a crackdown are overstated. East Hampton and Sagaponack Village have very strictly enforced limits, and property values have hardly been hurt. In parts of coastal Florida, Palm Beach, for example, “for sale” signs are no bigger than a sheet of letter-size paper. 

The public roadsides are just that. They should not be allowed to continue on as private extensions of lawns, nor should they be tarted up with commercial messages. A beautiful town should begin right at the pavement’s edge.

It was doomed from the start. Anything with the word reformulation, even in 1960, must have been unlikely to inspire confidence, much less beat back the sea. But carry on the Army Corps of Engineers did — and for 53 years. Its effort to build erosion control and hurricane protection structures between Fire Island and Montauk Point was never going to work for a variety of reasons — reasons that should have been understood then, but most certainly are now.

That the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study is old enough to sign up with AARP should be enough to compel Congress to revisit its suggestions for the Long Island shoreline. For one, climate change as the result of human activity was scarcely even a passing thought then; today, the United States military considers it among the greatest threats to global security. It is wrong that the Army Corps, which knows only how to build walls, and not such good ones at that, remains the country’s primary agency as far as the coast is concerned. 

Underscoring just how outdated the Fire Island to Montauk Point study is, its first environmental impact evaluation was begun in 1978 when Jimmy Carter was president. The study is finally said to be complete, and it was to be discussed at a meeting at the Montauk Playhouse last night. There was not going to be much to talk about, however, as the corps’s $1.2 billion proposal already appears set. Apparently, Congress isn’t watching.

In its final form, the study does little immediate harm but as long-term policy it is a disaster. It calls for placing sand on the downtown Montauk ocean beach every four years, as well as on the Wainscott and Sagaponack beaches. But what it would not do is far worse — and that is really the fault of Congress and the White House for failing to provide the right leadership.

What is needed today is a coastwide program of retreat. This would mean spending federal money not on sand and sandbags, as at Montauk, but in moving structures back from the beach. In their place, experts argue, natural-like protective dunes should be created. Because of its mindset, as well as that 1960 mandate from Congress, we know today that the Army Corps is incapable of a flexible approach to shoreline management that is in harmony with nature, rather than in opposition to it. 

If American taxpayers’ dollars are going to be spent along the coasts, it is only fair that they be allotted in the most sensible way possible. So far, we have seen only parsimonious measures that will only lead to the need for far greater expenditures later.

For all the attention being paid to the hamlet studies being conducted about commercial centers in East Hampton Town, there is reason for worry that larger issues could be overlooked.

Led by Dodson and Flinker, a consulting firm brought in by the town board, officials and residents have been looking at business sections in Amagansett, East Hampton, and Wainscott, and were to have started gathering information in Montauk this week. The work was commissioned to fill out the town’s comprehensive plan, a kind of a master policy and vision document last updated in 2005. And therein lies the problem.

Though the comprehensive plan was intended to be useful for 20 years or more, enough has changed in the last 11 years to make the existing plan seem obsolete. To cite but a few examples of how different things are today: In 2005 online vacation rental websites were barely functional; today they are the basis of a booming sub-economy. In 2005, Montauk had yet to become “hip” or subject to very deep-pocketed corporate development pressure. Additionally, concern about waterways and the airport had nowhere near today’s fever pitch. We can’t help reminding our readers (even though they know) that traffic was only a fraction as bad as it is now, and there were still a few affordable places for year-round residents to rent if they looked hard enough.

The hamlet studies so far seem to be most concerned about traffic and aesthetics and how far one has to walk to shop. This could change, of course, as the consultants begin to study what they have learned in their weeks here and report back. However, it’s hard to escape the feeling that, given all the new realities, these individual efforts will, in the end, produce little of lasting value without a new look at the overall town comprehensive plan. 

Much as we like the Hamptons International Film Festival and the action it brings at this time of year, one aspect deserves more attention: Main Street in East Hampton Village.

Even before the festival’s opening night, it seemed as if the jaywalking Olympics has come to town. Moviegoers and festival staff seem to think nothing of sauntering across the street’s four lanes, more or less from in front of Starbucks to the Regal Cinema, and dashing back again.

Factor in low light at evening screen times — and the fading eyesight of many of us drivers of a certain age — and there is the risk of a real life tragic ending, one we have seen here before. This is despite a traffic light at Newtown and Main Street and two nearby crosswalks fitted with buttons that instantly trigger flashing yellow lights to warn motorists that someone is about to cross their paths.

No solution is perfect — and jaywalkers are going to do what jaywalkers are going to do — but it seems to us that the village police, working with the film festival, should take the situation a little more seriously. At a minimum, temporary signs should be placed on Main Street at the obviously tempting spots, directing pedestrians left and right to the crosswalks. It is baffling that something this simple has not been tried before.

One other thought: The good intentions of some drivers, particularly those in the middle lanes on Main Street, who stop to let pedestrians cross, are an invitation to disaster when an unwitting motorist is approaching in the outside, or right-hand, lane. Too frequently, the person on foot is obscured by the Good Samaritan’s vehicle and emerges suddenly into the path of a second driver. Those Star readers inclined to stop to allow jaywalkers to finish their risky crossing should think twice and at least make sure no other vehicles are approaching.

But back to the main point: With extra foot traffic during the festival, an effort should be made to make sure more people use the crosswalks — and keep safe. Here’s to happy endings for all!

A plan being put forward by the East Hampton Town Board to possibly convert the Child Development Center of the Hamptons, a now-closed charter school, to a senior citizens center is interesting, but might not be as attractive as first thought.

At a recent meeting, the board reviewed a consultant’s report that found the Stephen Hand’s Path, East Hampton, building in good condition and suitable, with relatively modest changes and expense for upgrades, as a replacement for the town senior center on Springs-Fireplace Road. There would even be space available for other community uses, perhaps including the East Hampton Food Pantry. 

The wild card is the cost. Although the town owns the underlying site, the building is owned by the nonprofit agency that ran the school. Once the potential purchase price is known, it might no longer seem like much of a bargain.

Another issue is its location. According to the town’s Department of Human Services, visitors to the existing senior center like where it is, near the town’s population center. Expecting them to be as eager to travel nearly to Wainscott might be a stretch. The main roads that patrons would use to get to and from the new center — Montauk Highway and Route 114 — have considerable traffic problems at times, which should be a consideration.

Town officials are right to consider the C.D.C.H. site, but should proceed with caution. In the end, the better option might be to build anew on Springs-Fireplace Road.