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.

Several contested races will be on the ballot when annual voting for school board members and district budgets takes place on Tuesday. Would that there were more challengers; the status quo isn’t apt to result in a fresh look for a solution to the growing inequities between rich and poor districts, and new blood might speed the way. 

That said, in the case of the East Hampton School Board, there is actually only one challenger, Alison Anderson, a former board member who now wants another term. She declined to answer a reporter’s questions about her goals and instead sent a prepared statement, which raised our doubts about her intentions. Instead, three incumbents, J.P. Foster, Richard Wilson, and Wendy Geehreng, should be re-elected.

Springs has two seats in play, with one board member seeking to return: Adam Wilson. The newcomers are Amy Rivera and David Conlon. Our endorsements go to Ms. Rivera, who works in the East Hampton Town tax receiver’s office, and Mr. Conlon, a seasoned professional and member of the district’s facilities committee. Mr. Wilson has never tried to offer much as a board member, from what we have been able to observe.

There is a real race on in Sag Harbor, with four qualified candidates battling for two board seats. Roxanne Briggs, who is a parent and businesswoman and who was once a member of the board at the Hampton Day School, and Susan Lamontagne, a marketing consultant and former press secretary for Senator Arlen Specter, are seeking seats. Susan Kinsella, who is now the school board president, and Chris Tice, its vice president, hope to remain on the board. Between the two challengers, we liked most what Ms. Lamontagne had to say, especially about the board’s questionable closed-door sessions when it was batting ideas around about whether to try to buy the former Stella Maris School. Her shake-it-up attitude would be welcome. Ms. Tice has made positive contributions on the board and seems to make her decisions in a reasoned way. Our endorsements go to Ms. Lamontagne and Ms. Tice.

In Montauk, Patti Leber, the board vice president, should be returned to the board, and Tom Flight, a business owner with corporate strategy experience, would be an excellent addition.

The elections in Amagansett, Bridgehampton, Sagaponack, and Wainscott are uncontested.

As to the budget votes, the Springs board and administration did everything they could to stay within the tax levy increase limit, and the spending plan proposed should be approved in recognition of that effort. 

Bridgehampton is asking voters to okay exceeding the cap, which would add about $117 a year in taxes to a $2.5 million property. While it is not clear that the board and administration did enough to hold the line, it is difficult to suggest a no vote, which would have serious consequences. Amagansett also hopes to be able to pierce the cap, but by a small amount, which appears justified, though its budget process was poorly explained to voters.

The annual school district meetings next week are one of the rare times that taxpayers get to actually vote on budgets. With the presidential election stirring things up, we expect good turnouts.

Judging from the Memorial Day weekend crowds, East Hampton Town should adopt a zero-growth strategy. Unfortunately, the approach evident in a new round of official advisory studies is to encourage increased development, with commercial sprawl extended in some cases into predominantly residential areas under a smokescreen of “smart growth.”

East Hampton’s recently initiated hamlet studies, one for each section of town, have the makings of disaster. Instead of taking a macro view of existing development and coming up with overall guidelines for the future, the hamlets seem to be being reviewed in isolation. The net effect could well be to recommend zoning changes that add to commercial activity in some areas, without a clear understanding how they might link together or — what is most important — if the current road, water, power, and emergency systems can handle it all.

While it is difficult to assign responsibility to any single era of elected officials, it is clear that decades of poor foresight and outright, if not deliberate, mistakes have created the current untenable conditions. Some bad decisions include then-Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman’s watering down of multiple occupancy enforcement, particularly in Springs, which helped create the school overcrowding crisis the district now faces. Later, financial mismanagement overwhelmed Town Hall during the Supervisor Bill McGintee years. And then, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and a mostly like-minded town board basically gave Montauk away, implying that to seek peace and quiet was to be against “young people having fun.”

As we have been saying for a few weeks now, development pressures are coming so fast that town officials may find it so hard to keep up that a commercial moratorium is the only choice. With massive sums of corporate money flowing into town, particularly in Montauk, we appear poised to see even more visitors in coming summer seasons. 

Think about one fact: According to a county estimate, the overnight population of Montauk alone can leap from 3,400 to 27,000 on a peak weekend. 

That number places burdens on services and makes year-round residents feel like strangers in their own community. If that isn’t a definition of governmental failure, we don’t know what is. All money is not necessarily the same, and any of it that diminishes our quality of life should be discouraged. To the extent possible, this town should cease being an eager playground for Wall Street vanities and a willing partner in cold, corporate despoliations.

The time to get on top of it is nearly past. Chipping away around the edges with well-intended but inappropriate hamlet studies will not get the job done by any stretch of the imagination. Zero-growth, or figuring out how to actually turn back the clock through the aggressive use of the community preservation fund to buy and neutralize as many properties as possible, must be a key part of any effort to, as the town Democrats used to say, save what’s left.

The past weekend’s reopening of BookHampton on Main Street in East Hampton Village, under new ownership, is worth celebrating. For years, we’ve heard new-technology enthusiasts say that print is dead, but what with BookHampton re-establishing itself, a couple of lively bookshops in Sag Harbor, a cozy and delightful one in Montauk, and others thriving elsewhere on the South Fork, it seems that reports of print’s demise have been exaggerated.

Holding a beloved book in the hand is a distinct pleasure, and, for many readers, retention and understanding just seem better with a hard copy than with a screen. Plus, and hereabouts this is a big thing, e-readers just don’t cut it on the beach. Under the sun and on the sand, there’s no substitute for real, old-fashioned books.

There’s evidence that the trend away from digital reading may be more widespread. In the United Kingdom, e-book sales have dropped, while traditional bound-book sales have risen. In the United States, Kindle and other e-reader content sales dropped 13 percent last year, with print books jumping about 2.8 percent. Noting the trend, perhaps, Amazon, the behemoth online marketplace, has opened its first brick-and-mortar bookshop.

Maintaining vibrant, welcoming places of commerce is important for our downtowns. Bookstores, which stay open late and frequently host talks by authors, reading marathons, and signings, are a crucial antidote to a problem we are all painfully aware of: Main Streets that have been held hostage by fly-by-night designer boutiques and corporate-fashion outposts that function more as million-dollar billboards than useful stores. We wish BookHampton and the rest all the very best.

The so-called Panama Papers scandal, which took down Iceland’s prime minister on Tuesday, may seem a long way from eastern Long Island. Because the ownership of many of the most valuable properties here remains secret, however, just who might be hiding next door, so to speak, is a good question. Given concern by United States authorities about possible international money laundering ties to luxury real estate, there is reason to suspect that this region could be involved.

It is difficult to imagine a bigger financial story than the one that broke Monday about an enormous cache of documents from a Panamanian law firm that appeared to specialize in aiding the rich and powerful from around the world in their efforts to hide wealth, including ill-gotten gains. Although American interests have been relatively few in the initial revelations, some are sure to come from among the roughly 11.5 million documents that were leaked.

The common thread between the Panama scandal and the South Fork is a desire of those with the money to keep out of view. Transactions here often involve anonymous limited liability corporations or trusts, which make it all but impossible to know who is buying what, or what the ultimate direction might be when a project needs review by local regulatory agencies. One recent example was the shadowy entity called ED40, whose hidden principal or principals hired a couple of local front men as they sought to convert the East Deck Motel in Montauk to a high-end members-only surf club.

 L.L.C.s and other forms of private partnerships can be legitimate legal strategies for dealing with tax and inheritance issues; their use is not in itself the problem. The New York Times has found that an increasing number of foreign buyers have been using shell companies — like some of those unveiled in the Panama Papers — to find safe investments for dirty money in the United States. As reported extensively in The Times earlier this year, the Treasury Department is planning a trial effort to root out illicit money in high-end real estate deals in Manhattan and South Florida. For the first time, real estate companies in those markets will have to name the individuals behind cash transactions. The Treasury Department could widen its net beyond Manhattan and Miami if early results indicate the problem is as widespread as indicated. It would be naïve not to assume that some of that money flowed toward this area. 

At a local level, partnerships registered in U.S. states that allow anonymity need not be the stuff of international intrigue to be troubling. More information rather than less is key to making good land-use decisions. Knowing who or what is behind a particular project makes sense. This is made acute as more corporate interests focus here, particularly in Montauk, where redevelopment of former mom-and-pop hotels and restaurants appears at a fever pitch. 

Just who government is doing business with should be clear in all cases. While the public might be out of the loop, hidden ownership presents too-easy opportunities for corruption, as seen abundantly in some of the recent Albany scandals.

Think, too, of the record sums of sketchy L.L.C. money tied to East Hampton Airport interests and out-of-town helicopter companies that flooded the November election. Though the Republicans, to which all that cash went, were soundly defeated, that might not have been the case at another time and on another issue. 

It is time that officials work harder to pierce the clouds of secrecy. If the sources of money are legitimate, the owners of the L.L.C.s and the like should have nothing to hide.

East Hampton Town has begun work on a set of so-called hamlet studies. Six in all, they are supposed to result in recommendations for the town’s commercial areas. The objective is to produce a document that will guide future land-use decisions and allow commerce to function while avoiding sprawl and other negative effects of growth. So far, the effort has consisted of forums at which interested residents have weighed in. These have been worthwhile, but we worry that the planners are missing a key element: the nature of the town itself.

In a statement of goals for the studies, the town and its consultants have evinced a fundamental misunderstanding of the local business environment. In materials provided at the forums, references are made to a “thriving tourist economy” and to East Hampton as a “premier international resort community.” We are troubled by these characterizations.

The greatest irritations to year-round and summer residents alike in recent years have come from transient visitors and the businesses that cater to them. These give very little back to the community, both in social terms and in terms of dollars, and yet the costs they engender are high. It is no longer correct to call a community with a majority of second homes a resort, international or otherwise.

Unlike the hamlet studies organizers, it is our belief that the truly important commercial activity within East Hampton Town is related to houses, landscaping, and people who spend a meaningful amount of time here. The so-called resort economy, by contrast, is dominated by seasonal businesses whose suppliers and work force are from away, and whose profits flow to distant corporate offices. Meanwhile, ordinary residents are left to deal with noise, litter, traffic, and a good hunk of the costs, through taxes, of cleaning up the messes and law enforcement.

Public meetings are to start in late May at which the hamlet studies will begin to take shape. Before that happens, town officials and the consulting firm must think long and hard about what kind of community this really is and in whose interest the forthcoming recommendations should be. 

For our dollar, the answer is that residents and people who make long-term commitments to this place must come first. The indifferent, extractive tourist industry cannot be allowed to lead the discussion without a full accounting of its real impacts and, as we see it, minimal benefits.

The South Fork has a housing crisis. Just ask almost any employer or a prospective employee who has considered moving to the region for a job. Places to live are all but unavailable. So far, attempts by local government to find solutions have failed to meet demand. 

After a good start some years ago and then a period of dormancy, East Hampton Town may soon see at least one new affordable complex — in Amagansett. But the number of units planned is small and would probably mean little for single workers. They certainly would not put a dent in this season’s needs. Regulations already in the town code to allow the construction of so-called accessory apartments were well intentioned but no magic bullet. Obviously much more will have to be done, perhaps tapping public funding in new and creative ways.

In Southampton, Supervisor Jay Schneiderman has taken up the challenge, something he dabbled in while in the Suffolk Legislature. One of his ideas is to seek underutilized houses that might have enough space for an apartment and then to find a way to provide property owners with incentives or help to make conversions. He has set a tentative goal of having 25 units in process by the end of the year. Ideally, these apartments would be earmarked for Southampton residents now living in illegal or substandard housing and for those, like schoolteachers, who do vital local work.

One thing we would like to see is for the incorporated villages in Southampton and East Hampton Towns to get involved. For too long, officials have been content to see second-floor apartments converted to offices and to expect solutions to the housing problem to come from the towns. This is shortsighted. Sag Harbor has the beginning of a housing fund, but hasn’t done much to prove it is up to the task. East Hampton Village does not appear to have paid attention to the housing crisis at all. In the interest of sharing the burden, if adequate places to live are to be created, the central commercial districts must be used as well.

Perhaps in the area of wishful thinking, much has been made lately of micro-houses. These are the cute, sometimes mobile structures that are generally far smaller than allowed by local zoning codes. To the extent that wastewater from numerous tiny houses on existing residential lots could be adequately handled, they might help chip away at the pressing need — as long as they do not become de facto summertime hotels.

Every unit that can be added to the affordable supply matters. All potential sources should be considered.

Pity the poor person who tries to do something nice for children in these parts. Case in point: the East Hampton RECenter.

Twenty-odd years after taxpayers defeated a swimming pool at East Hampton High School, there is still no indoor public swimming facility within how many miles? No swim-team scholarships. No indoor training to supply lifeguards at public beaches and private pools. No place where those who ply the seas can learn to swim. No place that offers aquanautics for seniors.

A pool, of course, is only one amenity of a phantom youth center that has been needed for generations. At long last the East Hampton Youth Alliance takes on the task, energetically raising funds for a first-class center across the street from a public school.

Delighted Main Street merchants rub their palms, anticipating the day when adolescents will repair to the new center instead of to their traditional hangout on the steps of the old V.F.W. Building. Then, three weeks ago, five years into the planning stages of the center, for which ground is to be broken this month, neighbors emerge to oppose the project:

"It's frightening. This is our backyard."

"The majority of neighbors do not want this in this area. It does not belong here."

"The bad kids will be expelled from inside, spill out to the neighborhood, and there will be vandalism."

"How late at night will kids be able to use the steps?"

Case in point: Lions Field in Montauk. An expansion is proposed that would create the only community playground in the hamlet, enough space for its popular soccer and softball leagues to coexist without rancor, and an in-line skating rink, all conveniently near the center of town.

The town agrees to fund the project, but the plan is opposed by those who fear that youths will, among other things, intimidate homeowners in a nearby apartment complex and create too much noise outside a seasonal movie theater.

The proposed solution? Move the facility to Camp Hero, a remote park about seven miles east of almost everything else in the community, where supervision and transportation are guaranteed to pose problems.

Case in point: the Sag Harbor skateboard park. Skateboarding is banned on the streets and sidewalks of Sag Harbor and East Hampton Villages, and from the sidewalks of downtown Amagansett and Montauk.

A group of Sag Harbor skateboarders persuade the Sag Harbor School District to set aside a small area for skateboarding and manage to raise thousands of dollars for the park. There is talk of making the park "a generational bridge" by eventually adding shuffleboard, boccie, and chess, and of fencing the facility at night to insure its security.

Again, neighbors protest, insisting that a better place can be found. The insurer backs off on its promise to cover liability, and the plans continue to collect dust.

In the case of each project there are legitimate concerns - about traffic, safety, and/or damage to the environment - which deserve to be addressed. Nor can the impact of noise and lights on those who live nearby be underestimated.

But fear is also at work - and a mentality that says keep those you fear out of sight. What are our young people to make of this? Where, exactly, would we like them to go?

On a barge to nowhere or a satellite orbiting the globe?

Adequate recreational facilities and well-run youth centers should be basic ingredients of small-town life. Vandalism and intimidating behavior by youngsters in public places are best approached by offering them something better to do.

It takes a village to make its youngsters feel like members of a happy and healthy community instead of lepers. We've got the choice.

You know the sound. It’s a lovely weekend afternoon and suddenly you hear the thudding of shotgun blasts. A small group is off in the distance target shooting. When you check the beach later, it is covered with spent casings and fragments of orange-and-black clay pigeons. You are outraged at the mess and the double standard — littering and disturbing the peace is illegal, unless you happen to have been firing a gun. 

That is what one of our readers must have thought when she gathered up a large quantity of shotgun shells and plastic wadding at Fort Pond Bay in Montauk recently and sent us a photograph. Beach walkers in Amagansett might also be puzzled at the noise from Albert’s Landing. A call to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation reveals that nothing can be done. Regulations allow for such things so long as the shooters are at least 500 feet from a house and, supposedly, clean up after themselves.

It was one thing when a few year-rounders did some shooting once in a while. But now, with eastern Long Island increasingly crowded, what made sense back then does not necessarily make sense anymore. Thought should be given to whether non-hunting shooting by the few should be limited to ranges, leaving our beaches and open spaces for quiet, leave-no-trace enjoyment. Unfortunately, perhaps, that time may have come.

It has been a long time since a New York presidential primary really mattered. And it has been a long time since a primary season has generated anywhere near this level of interest among East End residents. No matter where one might be on the political spectrum, the big-picture debates about the direction of the country have been significant. 

Hillary Clinton, in recent polls, is favored to win in New York, as is Donald Trump. Mrs. Clinton’s ascendancy is not surprising, given her time representing the state in the Senate and her and her husband’s general popularity here. Mr. Trump’s appeal is also obvious, if for what we consider profoundly wrong reasons. The expected Republican also-rans, John Kasich and Ted Cruz, seem hardly the sort of candidates who could win in such a populous and diverse state as this. As could have been expected, Mr. Cruz, the Texas senator who infamously decried “New York values,” came in last in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. As for Bernie Sanders, were he to outvote Mrs. Clinton in New York it would be a surprising upset, according to predictions.

As much as this year’s choices have reflected a sharply fragmented electorate, the measure of ourselves it holds up is valuable. This year may well be a crossroads, and we welcome New York, for once, at the center of it.