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. 

Other than for fans of the banana Bailey’s colada, a “for sale” sign on the former Cyril’s Fish House on the Napeague stretch of Montauk Highway is welcome. The eponymous owner of the bar and restaurant decided this spring to not open after losing a case in East Hampton Town Justice Court that involved a raft of building code violations. Now, the property’s owners, who were not involved in the day-to-day operations there, have put it on the market.

For all we know, East Hampton officials may already be contemplating buying the property using money from the community preservation fund. Even if that is not the case, they should take a close look. Among the town’s concerns about the operation was that its septic flow could harm groundwater and reach Napeague Harbor. Buying the property would be a great opportunity to restore the low-lying land before a new owner or commercial tenant comes along and public acquisition becomes much less likely.

Given that the property is separated only by the Long Island Rail Road tracks from Hither Hills State Park and the Walking Dunes, returning it to a natural state would be ideal. And, the bumper-to-bumper tie-ups that Cyril’s generated in its heyday would be forever gone. Given past history, it is conceivable that a future town planning board might allow the place to revert to what it was like at its worst. Eliminating that possibility should be a priority. Knocking the joint down and planting it with native vegetation would be preservation money well spent.

Two recent conservation initiatives from the South Fork’s larger utilities caught our eye and support a sense that the area has reached some sort of maximum. PSEG Long Island and the Town of East Hampton have announced energy awareness days next week with a goal of dialing back on power consumption. At the same time, the Suffolk County Water Authority is pushing a voluntary odd-even day irrigation schedule to cut demand. Meanwhile, cellular companies are scrambling to erect new antennas, and ambulance companies across the region have added paid paramedics to help the volunteers cope with emergencies. 

But there is more: Water quality degradation is on the rise and up to a fifth of future community preservation fund income could be diverted to build sewage treatment plants and pay for remediation. In addition, traffic congestion has turned ordinarily brief trips into unwanted adventures. It all adds up to a region that has grown too populous for its limited landmass and existing infrastructure. 

Asking residents and business owners to conserve water or reduce their use of electricity might make officials think they are doing some good, but it will hardly make a difference. To save eastern Long Island from the all-but-inevitable will take a whole lot more than photo-ops; it will take a determined effort to reduce seasonal population surges and new residential development as well as to curtail commercial sprawl. So far, we see no evidence anyone is taking on the harder, fundamental questions. 

Yes, many of us may happily install low-flow showerheads — but what is government going to do? 

Speaking at an Amagansett citizens advisory committee meeting recently, Ed Michels, the East Hampton Town harbormaster and the person in charge of the town’s Marine Patrol, said that Montauk’s beaches had as many as 100 bonfires on a summer weekend night. He told the group that as of next week, town officers would begin enforcing a rule that fires be kindled only in metal containers and that a two-gallon bucket of water be kept within 10 feet of a fire at all times. 

The bucket rule, Mr. Michels suggested, was the aspect most likely to give his officers trouble, since those responsible for bonfires might be unlikely to have the correct equipment. Considering this, and the mess often left behind after nighttime parties, one might think the time has come to do away with downtown Montauk beach fires altogether. One hundred is just too many, if you ask us.

Underscoring the scale of problems on the beaches, Marine Patrol issued more than 2,200 summonses last year, though they weren’t all for bonfire violations, of course. As elected officials look for ways to tame the chaos, eliminating beach fires in the downtown Montauk area would be a good place to start.

In the Democratic primary on Tuesday, David Calone, a political first-timer, faces Anna Throne-Holst, a former Southampton Town supervisor. The winner will battle Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican nearing the end of his first term. How support for the Democratic Party candidates gelled presents an interesting picture of East End politics in which the person one knows well is not necessarily the favorite.

Mr. Calone is all but a stranger in East Hampton Town, but he has been backed by all four of the town board’s Democrats, and The New York Times, which cited his “stronger record as an environmentalist.” This includes what has been seen as a key vote against the disputed “555” housing complex in Amagansett, which he cast as chairman of the Suffolk Planning Commission. The town Democratic Committee endorsed him as well, and the story is much the same among Southampton Town Democrats.

One might wonder just why there has not been equal depth of support for Ms. Throne-Holst. This apparently is due in part to Ms. Throne-Holst’s several policy reversals, including some backstabbing on the East Hampton Airport, and to a frequent complaint that she is difficult to work with. Some of her most prominent backers have tended to be people who do not know her so well. Senator Kristin Gillibrand, for example, is from upstate. Perhaps most notably, Suffolk Legislator Bridget Fleming, who served alongside her on the Southampton Town Board, favors Mr. Calone.

As best we can predict, the First Congressional District race between Mr. Zeldin and whoever wins the primary next week will be decided on turnout. With Donald Trump at the top of the Republican ticket and Hillary Clinton the Democratic, how the presidential candidates fare here may well have something to do with which candidate is favored for the House of Representatives, which in turn depends on who goes to the polling places that day. With Ms. Throne-Holst engendering considerable bad feeling locally, Democratic prospects would more obviously be buoyed by the likable Mr. Calone.

The East Hampton Town Board appears ready to put a measure on the November ballot intended to provide up to 20 percent of the community preservation fund for water quality improvement. Despite its backers’ good intentions, this has the makings of a massive boondoggle, leaving far too much to the discretion of politicians, if it were approved by voters.

How soon we forget, apparently. East Hampton Town was rock­ed some years ago when then-Supervisor Bill McGintee misspent millions in community preservation dollars. Exaggerated cries that he was bankrupting the town were heard, and the debt to pay it back was hefty.

Now, state and local officials are working on a structure within which millions could be available for a laundry list of water-related projects, including sewage plants and, perhaps, grants to replace cesspools that leach waste into surface or drinking water. How the money would be spent would ultimately be up to future town boards — people not all that different from the ones who ignored the McGintee debacle until it was too late. 

One huge problem is that excessive density has long been constrained by nearness to wetlands or the effect on groundwater of proposed developments. Now, with money for treatment systems, you can expect that to seem like less of a problem. Supporters of the measure say that the money could not be spent on things that “solely accommodate new or additional growth,” in the words of an East Hampton Town staff attorney. The key word here is “solely,” meaning that new and additional growth in once off-limits places might well be within the realm of possibility. As if East Hampton needs any more of anything. Come on, people, think.

Before the measure is taken to the voters, it must be made airtight, leaving no room for otherwise inevitable abuses, given politicians’ demonstrated proclivity to do the wrong thing when given the chance. Taking responsibility for its implementation away from them and placing it with a nonpartisan board should be something getting serious consideration.

Also important is decoupling the water quality aspects of the referendum from a proposed extension of the preservation fund to 2050. They are separate issues and must be presented to the voters as such.

No matter where one might stand on the question of Napeague Truck Beach, it is likely that no one is going to be happy once the verdict is announced in the ongoing lawsuit, probably at the end of the summer. 

A group of property owners sued East Hampton Town and the town trustees seeking to end the summer weekend use of a 4,000-foot-long stretch of sand as a de facto bathing beach and truck parking area. The defense has countered that beach driving is not only a tradition but enshrined in assurances that date to colonial times. 

The fact is, though, that where once one might have seen no more than a handful of trucks on the beach east of Napeague Lane on a summer’s day, now there can be more than 100. Times have changed; there are far more four-wheel-drive vehicles here than a generation ago. Anyone who claims otherwise is just not remembering what it was like in, say, the 1970s and 1980s. 

East Hampton Town officials are at fault for not taking steps to head off what they should have recognized was coming — a confrontation between homeowners and Truck Beach users. With as many as 100,000 people in East Hampton Town on a sunny summer weekend, it should be obvious that policies have to change to keep up. The town should have found an appropriate location years ago for an additional ocean beach for residents; one that is not plunked in front of other residents’ houses. Instead, the trustees and Town Hall have sided with the beach-driving crowd, not really understanding that other taxpayers deserve consideration, too. 

Instead of finding a practical solution, the town appears ready to condemn the disputed beachfront, which is risky. Condemnation advocates say the price will be minimal; the property owners who are suing warn that it could run into the tens of millions or more. A court will ultimately decide. However, even if the town manages to buy Truck Beach, a huge legal problem will remain, namely that proper health code procedures for creating a bathing beach have not been followed there and that a court might decide that the unrestrained use of the beach by those who arrive by truck is a public nuisance. In a worst case scenario, all but the most limited beach driving might well be at risk depending on what a judge decides.

Meanwhile, at Three Mile Harbor, some residents have begun to complain about trucks parking on a small, flat portion of sand inside the breakwaters. No matter that the beach is easily accessible from the public parking area at Maidstone Park, some folks act as if it were a fundamental right to roll down and park on the beach. Frankly, to our eye, it is terrible to see trucks backed up there nearly to water’s edge. It seems completely unnecessary for anyone to drive a truck onto that beach, unless perhaps it is someone with a valid handicapped permit.

Leadership is needed now to guide the battle over Truck Beach, and other increasingly abused stretches like at Three Mile Harbor, to a solution that works for all. Unfortunately, town officials, eager to capitulate to the four-wheelers, may be setting themselves up for an even greater loss — one that ultimately brings an end to the hard-fought, 350-plus years of public use of the beaches for such purposes as surfcasting and commercial fishing. By digging in so firmly, the town and trustees are running the risk of losing the whole thing.

Local officials and community activists might have been a bit premature in declaring that recent measures designed to tame the summer party scene are a success. In the week and a half since Memorial Day we have heard variations on the theme of “it wasn’t so bad.” To those who might think this is the real story, we have one thing to say: You haven’t seen anything yet. 

Recall for a moment that on the Tuesday following the Fourth of July last summer an estimated 300 people turned up at a town board meeting in Montauk to demand action. Over the course of a four-hour session, complaints were about noise, trash, crowds, drunks, group rentals, public urination and defecation, and environmental damage. 

The town board appeared blindsided by it all back then. In response, however, the board enacted a rental registry, which is supposed to make enforcement of housing laws easier. More recently, the town has begun to ask state officials to look at the alcohol permits of a handful of places that feature live music. This could be seen as passing the buck, as it really should have fallen to town officials to have long ago prevented places like the Surf Lodge, 668 the Gig Shack, and Sole East in Montauk from becoming de facto concert venues. And, just under the town board’s noses, Moby’s on Pantigo Road in East Hampton appears to have begun bringing the party west.

State law regarding live music does nothing when the performer happens to be a D.J. playing recorded music, an oversight since some D.J.s, like their guitar-strumming and microphone-wielding compatriots, enjoy superstar status these days. Considering that, and the calendar, it would be foolish to declare the war over, and sit back.

Look, we just run a newspaper here; we’re not public policymakers. But from where we sit, it seems the town board still has a way to go before it can say the town has regained the peace and charm that the majority of residents — and likely the bulk of summer visitors — desire. Get on it, people: The Fourth of July is approaching fast.

We were rather pleased to see that Sag Harbor Village as regards an application for a new high-end residential complex on the waterfront near the North Haven bridge is taking a hard line. In meetings last month, Greystone Property Development was told by one of the village’s legal team to think again about its calculation that it could have 11 houses with private parking and boat slips. At issue was Greystone’s math on how much of the site it could build on. Greystone says one thing; the village says another. If the Sag Harbor is right, Greystone would be entitled to a somewhat smaller number of units. This is a big deal.

Just how many of the developer’s faux whalers’ houses it could build could emerge as a key issue for the future of the land. The Sag Harbor Village Board, the Town of Southampton, and many residents and visitors favor the public acquisition of the property for a park. If the permissible residential density there falls below some certain unnamed point, it is conceivable that Greystone might agree to sell. We hope.

Frankly, Greystone’s principals should have been willing to do the right thing all along. It is regrettable that their narrow, money-making vision includes permanently marring the Sag Harbor waterfront and potentially miring the village in litigation for years as the matter is fought in court. They could be heroes by working with the village to create a public space everyone could be proud of. Instead, they appear to be girding for a fight.

As soon as next year, the South Fork could see a rail shuttle designed to help cut congestion on the roads and provide a meaningful alternative for people traveling among the hamlets and villages. 

Credit is due to State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. for pushing the idea over many years. It might be too soon for congratulations, but in a sit-down meeting at his Bridgehampton office last month, Mr. Thiele got the Long Island Rail Road president to commit to initial east-west rail shuttle sometime in 2017 as a goal. The service is envisioned as two trains in the morning and one in the afternoon, and it would use existing L.I.R.R. stock. Help would be sought from county and local officials with marketing and for transportation to and from train stations and workplaces or other places that riders might want to get to. 

As a sweetener, one of Mr. Thiele’s ideas is to free up about $37 million in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s capital budget that had been set aside to buy new, light locomotives for the South Fork shuttle. Instead, with existing trains likely to be used in the pilot program starting next year, that money could be used for other L.I.R.R. projects.

With only a single track running between Southampton and Montauk, it will take some juggling on the L.I.R.R.’s part to get trains running at times that make sense. However, it is a worthy undertaking and one that might help broaden the work force, particular out East Hampton way and farther east, where an already limited pool of potential employees is made that much worse by the difficultly of getting to and from attractive jobs.

A South Fork rail shuttle is something that transportation advocates have hoped for for a very long time. It would be a remarkable accomplishment if it were to actually become a reality.