Only an insider could get terribly excited about recent East Hampton Town Trustee tension with regard to their so-called harbor management committee. Few town residents — some trustees among them — really know anything about the group or what it does. In fact, as far as we know, the committee has scarcely met since about the beginning of 2011. 

Officially, it is the Trustee Waters Improvement and Management Task Force. It was created as a three-member panel in 2001 to make recommendations about dredging, shellfish regulations, launching ramps, and problems in need of prompt attention. What the committee was asked to do is vital, but many of its responsibilities would seem more properly handled by the trustees as a whole. 

At another level, the committee’s continued existence brings into question the role of the trustees as an elected body. Harbor committee members have in the past gone around in personal vehicles and boats to look for derelict vessels and abandoned duck blinds, for example, taking on semi-official enforcement roles better suited for the town’s professional Marine Patrol officers. The trustees, like the members of the town board, are supposed to set policy for the areas under their authority, not be the cops on the beat. Most significantly though, the harbor committee cannot be of use unless it meets, which it apparently has not done at all in 2016. 

We have long believed that the town trustees had to catch up with the rest of town government in the way they function. Finding money to pay for its own trained staff might be one solution. Another might be for the town board to hire additional personnel for Marine Patrol and the Natural Resources Department to provide the trustees with expert advice and enforce its regulations.

The harbor management committee, by failing to meet in the face of rising challenges to the town’s waterways, has shown that it is now irrelevant. It should be replaced by something more efficient and reliably professional. 

The trustees’ bays and harbors are among the town’s most treasured public assets. Confusing or halfhearted efforts to protect them are not enough.

Eastbound in bumper-to-bumper traffic on Tuesday just before noon this week, we wondered why East Hampton Town officials seem unwilling or unable to come up with a sensible, long-term approach to gaining a measure of control over summer crowds. Ask a member of the town board directly about this, and you get a polite, if vacant, stare. 

The temptation is strong to say we told you so. Some decades ago, The Star came out in favor of a Montauk Highway bypass that would have diverted traffic around some of the Main Streets.

Opposition was strong. “If you build it, they will come!” was the cry, more or less word-for-word. Guess what? The bypass was not built, and they came anyway. Our main drags are often almost impassible and at this time of the year even the notion of driving to, say, Southampton on an errand is enough to bring on a cold sweat. Planning for the decades out remains in short supply. 

Talking to a town staffer the other day about how the proposed diversion of up to 20 percent of the community preservation fund for water quality projects might affect what the town will look like down the road, we several times got the same response: The work is intended to provide immediate solutions.

Separately, the Planning Department appeared to have missed the fact that a 200-seat sports bar in the offing for a site near the East Hampton Airport would bring a batch of people, and their vehicles. 

Unlike what we said when Bill Wilkinson and his compatriots ran Town Hall, we believe the elected officials and staff there now are good, well-intentioned folks. However, they are, from The Star’s point of view, failing to prepare for what’s ahead. Frankly, we think they must not see what is going on right now. 

Aside from traffic, consider for a minute a couple of pet peeves: beach fires and illegal commercial signs. Both could be dealt with easily, but are not. Your guess is as good as ours about why. 

In the case of fires, the recently revised — and unlikely read by the public — rules have failed to keep the beaches in several popular locations entirely free of staining charcoal and half-empty beer cans. (Earlier this year, it appeared that the new regulation that fires be kindled only in metal containers was adequate; now, deep into the season, we see that it is not.)

In the case of signs, though the rules are simple, enforcement is negligible. This is weird since one code officer told us that in most cases all it takes is one phone call to a business owner to get compliance. Are officials afraid of upsetting business owners? What about the bad message it winkingly sends that town law need not always apply? 

On signs and beaches and many other things, maybe it’s just that the people in Town Hall are overwhelmed. Or, maybe they just don’t get out of their offices often enough to actually see what is going on.  Either way, a number of their apparently good ideas did not turn out to work, and it seems that government will have to act accordingly.

We have to acknowledge that the town cops are doing a great job. For example, Chief Michael Sarlo paid close attention to the mess in Montauk last summer and moved things around in response. 

But in other areas, town officials seem perennially to be playing catch-up, acting as if time had stopped sometime in the 1990s, thinking that the party is on no matter what they say, and the best they can do is mop up. We, and many residents, don’t think that is enough. 

Move over — that’s the least we can do for our ambulance and fire volunteers as they rush on the roads to a call — and now it’s the law, backed up by a $275 fine and points on your license.

A law signed on July 21 by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo makes it mandatory for motorists to slow down and shift over a lane when approaching a vehicle with flashing green or blue lights operated by volunteer firefighters or ambulance workers involved in a roadside emergency. Until then, the law applied only to parked police and emergency vehicles with flashing red and white or amber lights. The intention is to give other vital personnel a safe space in which to do their critical work.

While the measure only applies to multi-lane highways it should help spread awareness statewide about what the flashing green and blue lights mean. Here, where two-lane roads are the norm, it is good practice to pull over to allow volunteer responders approaching from behind to pass. By highlighting their importance, lawmakers are giving a necessary tip of the hat to the many individuals who help keep all of us safe.

There was alarm among environmental activists when the Long Island Power Authority failed to take a widely anticipated vote in July on a wind farm that, had it gone forward, would have been the largest in the United States. Perplexingly, LIPA explained that the delay was at the request of state officials, who, LIPA said, wanted to align the proposal with forthcoming offshore wind and clean energy plans. To some observers, this sounded more than a little suspicious, even for an industry that has been plagued by regulatory stalling and controversy.

 What is odd about such a state request is that the clean energy mandate from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo centers on the goal of New York’s meeting 50 percent of its power needs from renewable sources, such as wind, by 2030. With construction on the Deepwater company’s wind farm set to begin within three years should LIPA approve it, it would appear that the project would have no problem being aligned with the state’s plans. 

The project calls for a 15-turbine installation about 30 miles off Montauk, with transmission lines tying into the electric grid in East Hampton. The 90 megawatts it would produce has been described as enough to supply as many as 50,000 houses, emissions-free. 

LIPA’s board of trustees is scheduled to meet next on Sept. 21 in Uniondale. We hope that it votes on the Deepwater plan, whether or not the state’s documents are ready. From the start, the alignment excuse appeared bogus; if LIPA is ready to move forward, the state should not be standing in the way.

Complain as we might about East Hampton Town’s long-term planning, a recent idea from Town Hall, about further restricting the size of houses, has merit. Early opposition from a few property owners and real estate agents should not derail what would be an important conversation.

Responding to concerns that new houses in some parts of town have grown out of proportion to the size of their lots, town board members have been looking at ways to dial back on what is allowed. In this, they are following East Hampton Village and several other East End municipalities, which have adopted laws intended to keep large new construction from overpowering streetscapes.

The town’s coastal areas deserve particular attention in this regard. With requirements set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that dictate minimum first-floor heights, construction and rebuilding can result in visually massive structures that loom over their neighbors. Taking a separate look at these scenic areas would be warranted as the town reviews the various aspects of the proposal.

As a baseline, town officials are looking at the formula used in East Hampton Village. It limits houses to 10 percent of a lot’s area, plus 1,000 square feet. Under town rules, houses now can be up to 12 percent of a lot’s area, plus 1,600 square feet. The village rules are a good starting point. As East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell has said, village house prices have obviously not suffered as a result.

There is bound to be some howling about any new restrictions and, yes, the town has more and larger open spaces than the village, but maintaining local character through limits on house sizes is a communitywide goal.

The practice when making community preservation fund deals is that the towns do not pay more than their commissioned appraisal indicates the property is worth. This might be sound procedure, but it also appears to hamstring officials in making purchases.

A current example involves 30 farmland acres in Amagansett owned by the Bistrian family, which have long been eyed for preservation. The several contiguous lots are frequently planted in corn and present a pleasingly bucolic backdrop to the hamlet’s Main Street business district. The town now says it cannot pay more than the appraisal it received while the family believes the land is worth much more. Making matters worse, the Bistrians are threatening that unless a deal is made soon, they will have a road opened to link a new residential development on the property to Windmill Lane, to the west. It is the family’s right not to be more preservation minded when it comes to Amagansett vistas, and there the matter sits unless the town finds another way to reach an agreement.

The community preservation fund is not hurting for money; it is likely to be extended to 2050 by voters in a November referendum, giving the town enormous borrowing power, if need be — even if officials and preservationists are eager to peel off up to 20 percent of future income for only vaguely specified water quality projects on top of the up to 10 percent already allowed for management and upkeep of acquired properties.

Another example of an appraisal’s apparently falling short was for the former East Deck Motel in Montauk, which, sandwiched between two town properties along the ocean at Ditch Plain, would have been a prime candidate for a more flexible acquisition process. Instead, the site is being readied for sale as house lots. Some observers are worried that whoever buys them will eventually try to privatize the narrow beach there. Whether or not that occurs, it was a massively missed opportunity to expand the public oceanfront, and clearly demonstrates that preservation fund procedures may be inadequate when it comes to high-value properties. It is, in our opinion, tragic that houses will now loom over what is arguably the most iconic and popular East Hampton Town beach.

That these two highly visible, publicly important properties will be developed is a shame, and clearly indicates that preservation fund practices must be revisited. One option is for the town to commission more than one appraisal, as has been done elsewhere. Another might be to allow appraisals to take into account potential future uses of a particular site, or to allow the town board wiggle room on price up to a formal cap above the appraised value. In any event, the town’s current approach in these examples looks like a low-ball failure, and, surely, in others to come. 

Stories have proliferated this summer about odd encounters between a few surfing instructors and the public at Montauk’s Ditch Plain. There was a report of a fight involving a flip-flop slap to someone’s face. We have heard about teachers who suggest, sometimes aggressively, that regular surfers move away from their students. With the popular beach and parking spaces at a premium, further conflict seems inevitable — as if the members of the East Hampton Town Board, who might be asked to do something about it, need one more thing to worry about.

We have seen it in action. There’s too much of a “don’t-you-know-who-I-am” attitude among some instructors and their friends, who don’t seem to realize that being able to conduct business on public property is a gift from the town. The problems are real and not limited to Ditch Plain. 

At Accabonac and Napeague Harbors, for-profit water sports and fitness operations clog limited accesses. Rental outfits think nothing of taking up parking spaces or blocking boat launches whenever they want. Caterers cordon off large swaths of sand on many summer evenings at beaches like Atlantic Avenue and Indian Wells. Recently, we heard about a floating yoga studio, moored in yet another location. It is likely that Ditch’s instruction problem is just the beginning of a headache for officials as more residents get fed up when those who conduct business act as if they own the place.

Unfortunately, it seems that Town Hall and the East Hampton Town Trustees have been unaware of the growing trouble and much too generous when it comes to how common assets are used by money-making ventures. If they are to be allowed at all, they must be strictly managed to assure they do not interfere with others. As for surfing lessons, they should be limited to places that are far away from popular breaks like Ditch Plain in order to reduce opportunities for conflict.

Everyone needs to remember that the South Fork’s beaches and waterways are cherished spaces for residents and visitors alike to share, protect, and enjoy. 

If there were one thing we wished regarding traffic on the South Fork it would be that state highway planners had spent the past week here just driving around. If they did, we are pretty darn sure things would be different quickly.

We can say this emphatically, since the last couple of times the Department of Transportation paid for roadwork out here, little, if any, thought was given to relieving summer tie-ups on Route 27 and Route 114, or to the fact that an unacceptable volume of trucks and personal vehicles has ended up on residential back roads because the state has failed to respond to seasonal and work force driving.

Pity for a moment, if you will, the people who live on Scuttlehole Road or north of Water Mill who are stuck in creeping, bumper-to-bumper lines of vehicles if they venture out to buy the proverbial quart of milk. It’s neither fair nor right. What of Montauk Highway in Wainscott? A disastrous stoplight, put in, best we can recall, about the time East Hampton Town police headquarters was moved nearby, slows movement in both directions — is it time for an overpass and on-ramps? A senselessly installed light on the highway in Water Mill creates similar delays. And Route 27 into Amagansett can be backed up nearly to Pantigo Road.

Route 114 is set for resurfacing this fall. But the work will do little to relieve summertime jams at Stephen Hand’s Path in East Hampton or on the approach to Sag Harbor. At Route 114’s eastern end, Buell Lane in East Hampton Village, avoidable accidents are the norm. That said, in a joint state and village project a roundabout is to be built at its Toilsome Lane intersection, the so-called five corners, soon, though how that will impact the surrounding streets still seems unclear.

Unfortunately, the state has just not kept up with the growth of the South Fork’s peak population. Roads that may be adequate in October are not good enough in July, or August, or, in fact, even into the shoulder seasons. Much more thought must be given to how Route 27 and Route 114 are used today, and new plans for dealing with the ever-increasing number of vehicles should be the priority.

“Welcome to New York,” two billboards set up overnight by state workers read, along with six others with similar messages. And Montauk went nuts. To understand why the easternmost hamlet was alarmed, you need to know a little of its history and why the idea of a port of entry there is not all that far-fetched.

Between the late-19th century and the Great Depression, several schemes were floated to build a deep-water port in Fort Pond Bay. This had been a goal for Austin Corbin, an early president of the Long Island Rail Road, who in about 1885 decided it would be lucrative to have express trans-Atlantic liners dock there and discharge New York City-bound passengers onto waiting trains. The plan never evolved, and it faded after Corbin’s accidental death in 1896. 

Various attempts to revive it in one fashion or another persisted, however, including, in 1911, an idea that the ocean liners Titanic and Olympic might dock in Montauk. In 1912, a French investor secured an option on a large suitable tract. The sense was that a Fort Pond Bay port could shave about eight hours off a voyage from the United Kingdom in good weather and up to a full day when there was fog. Finally, in 1931, the chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs had Navy vessels sent to Fort Pond Bay to support an L.I.R.R. plan to revive Corbin’s dream.

Subsequent, less ambitious efforts have amounted to nothing, at least so far. At one time, the operators of the Cross Sound Ferry, which has service between Orient to New London, Conn., sought a South Fork terminal, perhaps in Montauk, perhaps at Promised Land in Amagansett. Cross Sound sued East Hampton Town after it adopted a law in 1997 banning most ferries. Although the suit eventually was settled, it could be revived.

Most recently, rumors have been heard that the real reason an investor bought up a number of waterfront properties, including Duryea’s Dock on Fort Pond Bay, is that cruise liners could soon begin calling there, though a spokesman, Marc Rowan, has laughed off the notion. However, the law is just wiggly enough that cruise ships anchoring in Fort Pond Bay is not necessarily beyond the realm of possibility. 

Layer on the general sense that Montauk is changing in ways that longtime residents find disturbing, and it is more or less clear why the state signs set the hamlet’s collective teeth on edge. East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell channeled his best Ronald Reagan in declaring on social media, “Mr. Cuomo, take down those signs.” It added a note of humor to an online conversation that had turned quickly toward vigilante talk of chain saws and strong trucks capable of doing the job. 

Montauk is besieged. We expect that the signs will be gone before too long. But the feeling among residents and fans that Montauk is becoming new, shiny, and unfamiliar is likely to endure.

As Fourth of July weekend and the peak of the summer season approach, complaints already have been heard about the plethora of taxis operating in East Hampton Town. Some residents object to places where drivers park to rest. Others find their sometimes littered and noisy congregation points sore points, which may interfere with the public’s access to shopping.  

Another beef is cabs standing in front of various bars and restaurants, sometimes creating traffic hazards. And yet another is that taxi drivers sometimes hunt aggressively for riders or dump people to whom they have made a commitment when they think a better money-making fare is likely.  These might be legitimate gripes, but they miss the underlying point: Taxis are not the source of the problem.

Think of the plague of taxis like ants at a picnic. When they swarm, you lift the plate of fried chicken out of their reach. In the real-world case of East Hampton, sprawling nightclubs and outdoor party hangouts are the attraction; cut down on the number of patrons and the number of cabs drops, too.

As with so many other things, Town Hall seems only able to focus on the symptoms, not the causes. As long as East Hampton has booming clubs with hundreds of drink-swilling patrons, it will have a cab problem. And no amount of regulation of drivers, taxi companies, or anything else will make much of a difference. 

Want a calmer, safer, quieter East Hampton with fewer cabbies arrogantly bombing around without regard to traffic laws? You would have to close the clubs.