You can’t fault Scott Rubenstein for asking. And, frankly, we might assume that even he is surprised by how smooth the path in Town Hall has been so far for his plan for a bowling alley, miniature golf course, and 200-seat sports bar. 

We’ll repeat that last item, just so you don’t miss it — a 200-seat sports bar. Do we have your attention now?

Some neighbors are beginning to notice and have asked for the official love-fest to cool down a bit. This is appropriate. Even though the project is on a secluded site near the East Hampton Airport, its impact could be significant. Notably, property owners along South Breeze Drive, which is a shortcut between Route 114 and Daniel’s Hole Road and could be used by Mr. Rubenstein’s patrons, are concerned. 

It was myopic for some at a recent town planning board meeting to dismiss the South Breeze folks’ concerns as stompy-footed NIMBYism; put 200 seats of anything anywhere in town and there is going to be a serious impact, both in the immediate area and on a broader scale. Such projects cannot be vetted in a vacuum. Much as one might like Mr. Rubenstein, and think new recreational facilities are a good idea, far more official balance is needed.

Indeed, in an April 6 vote the Suffolk County Planning Commission suggested that East Hampton Town take a hard look at what the sports complex could generate. The town planning board has the option of ignoring this request if at least five of its seven members vote to do so. They should not back away from this responsibility. 

Having now been alerted by neighbors and the commission, the town must take a second, more detailed look, paying particular attention to what might happen if that 200-seat restaurant and bar is ever filled to capacity. We have already seen what kind of mayhem results from unchecked nightspots — particularly in Montauk. Planning board members would be totally out of line to blithely approve something even remotely similar anywhere in town. Some say that Montauk already approaches a yawning hell in summertime; exporting even some of it to another hamlet should not be countenanced.

Key also for town planners predisposed to okay the vast complex (Diana Weir and Reed Jones, we’re looking at you) is that although Mr. Rubenstein might be a great guy, approvals persist no matter who owns a property. The next owner or the one after that might have different ideas and by then almost nothing could be done about it.

A for-sale sign sways in the wind outside the shuttered Star Room nightclub on Montauk Highway in Wainscott. The apparent lack of activity there, however, belies what is going on behind the scenes: A dangerous proposal to build a car wash on the roughly two-acre site is working its way through East Hampton Town offices. 

Extreme caution is needed on this application, especially considering how badly officials have already, and for years, allowed helter-skelter development along the Wainscott commercial strip. We hope the town board can find a way to step in, perhaps seeking to use the community preservation fund to buy the parcel and restore it to a natural state.

Despite the assurances of the backers of the Golden Carwash, as it would be called, it would be a disaster, and not just for Wainscott. The car wash would be on a section of Montauk Highway that is already the single most-congested in town, making it almost inconceivable that the application could receive serious consideration.

Town planners have said that at minimum a thorough study of its effects on traffic must be prepared. For example, though the car wash as planned could accommodate 18 vehicles queued on the property, its capacity would be 125 vehicles per hour, though only about half that number would be expected, even during peak operation. Just think of all the idling vehicles along the side of the highway. Does the town really want to encourage that? We doubt it.

As to ecological impacts, statements that the car wash’s wastewater would be entirely contained on-site are hard to believe. Since the land is squarely within the Georgica Pond watershed, the greatest degree of scrutiny — and pointed skepticism toward its backers’ promises — is warranted.

Richard P. Myers Jr., the chairman of the East Hampton Town Architectural Review Board, recently reminded other officials that the property is part of the western gateway to East Hampton Town and that any decision for its reuse should wait until the completion of a new hamlet study, which is under way. In addition to traffic and the environment, his concerns include noise, light, and air pollution, as well as the effects on nearby residential neighborhoods centered on Cowhill, Wainscott-Northwest, and East Gate Roads.

The “land is directly over our watershed area and serious runoff could occur from usage as well as drainage from storms,” he wrote, adding that the “vista entering the Town of East Hampton in Wainscott needs cautious study.” We strongly agree, especially after the HomeGoods store debacle, in which an outsize building was allowed to go up a few short steps away from the edge of the highway pavement.

The East Hampton Town Board should in general be paying more attention to the effects of commercial redevelopment. Consider for a moment the pace at which Montauk is changing. The various studies the town has ordered, which might at some point recommend zoning changes, are not coming quickly enough to head off a number of troublesome proposals. Given the pace of change and the vast sums of money flowing into town, a temporary moratorium on certain nonresidential projects appears to be the only option. 

The changes that poorly understood development can bring are apt to last forever. Properly managing those changes — and in some cases just saying no — should be at the top of our leaders’ priorities. Some years ago, a rallying cry of local Democrats was “Save what’s left!” It is time that was heard again, and Wainscott and the Georgica Pond watershed are a fine place to start.

Plans to make the East Hampton Village Green more “green” are moving ahead, with a proposal to install contaminant-absorbing landscaping near Town Pond. Another project, a bioswale (whatever that is), will go in near Hook Mill. Both will help improve water quality in Hook Pond, whose headwaters reach to roadside drains on North Main Street. 

Mark our words, when the landscaping is in and what have you is planted, even if it’s native species, there will be some who will wonder what is going on and loudly demand, “Why weren’t we told?!” 

Hook Pond, with its minimal public access and limited recreational fishery, is hardly among this area’s pressing ecological problems, which is one reason why the focus on it might appear off base. One reason for the enthusiasm for the village green project from the Surfrider Foundation’s local chapter, Ladies Village Improvement Society, and several landscaping firms is its location, which will put water quality restoration in an impossible-to-ignore spot. 

Coupled with other developments — a likely massive funding source for new protections and movement in county government toward better septic systems — water quality improvement seems on the rise. The more the better, especially given recent studies. But we are concerned that amid all their enthusiasm, officials are getting ahead of themselves and backing undertakings that ought to be second or third-string priorities. 

A healthier Hook Pond is great, but its improvement should not come at the expense of work where, like at Lake Montauk, it is needed most. As officials consider the many coming ideas for improvement, they must ask where the efforts and money are really needed.

Getting a snack or a little ice cream at one of East Hampton Town’s beaches on a summer’s day is one of the simple pleasures of living or visiting here. That is why (we guess) the town allows vendors to lease spots at most of the ocean beaches where lifeguards are stationed. On paper, at least, it’s all for the good. However, if you stop by a few of the beaches on a crowded and hot afternoon in July or August, what goes on is a little much. Beachgoers, including children, of course, mill around, drivers try to pass them, and litter overflows from receptacles. With the town board agreeing to provide electrical service in a few of the locations for vendors and the season fast approaching, the moment is ripe for a few constructive thoughts. 

Our chief observation concerns the way in which private operators have been allowed to use a public asset without sufficient oversight to assure they are not creating problems with vehicle flow and excess waste. It is almost impossible to imagine that the town would happily haul away a brick-and-mortar restaurant’s trash, but that is exactly what happens at the beach, where customers place wrappers, cans, paper plates, and napkins in road-end bins. Town workers make almost perpetual rounds to keep up with it all. Instead, vendors must be made responsible for the cleanup rather than taxpayers. Depending on location, the rents vendors pay the town run from about $4,500 to $13,000 a year, a fraction of what renting from a traditional commercial landlord would cost. 

More thought also must be given to exactly where food trucks and the like are allowed to set up. The Beach Hut at Atlantic Avenue Beach in Amagansett is exemplary in that it is set back from the parking lot, keeping frozen-treat-seeking children away from the risk of being struck by someone backing up to look for a parking space. Furthermore, it hardly seems reasonable that vendors are allowed to take up more space than the barest minimum in the parking lots, which might be better used for bicycles or safer drop-off and handicapped access pull-ins.

Buying goodies at the beach is a summertime ritual. Far be it from us to play the killjoy by suggesting vendors be eliminated. Rather, it is clear that more thought must be given to how they operate — making sure safe and adequate parking, easy traffic flow, and cleanliness are top priorities.

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.

Five work weeks remain before Memorial Day, which hardly seems enough time for East Hampton Town officials to do what would be needed to maintain the delicate balance between the demands of summer and the interests of residents. There is a lot to do, and, while it is evident that all of summer’s ills cannot be solved in a single year, there is reason to worry that Town Hall remains satisfied with what is to many observers an unacceptable status quo.

May marks the beginning of the town’s new rental registry, which requires that landlords provide certain details about their properties and obtain a registration number, which must be posted in advertising. The town board’s intention in passing the measure was to provide better tools for the enforcement of existing laws about such things as occupancy and turnover. Judging from the virulent reaction to the registry from landlords, it appeared that there had been a hope that the old rules would not be enforced at all. 

Just what the impact will be on illegal shares, party houses, and de facto hotels remains to be seen, but the registry is a good start. The opposition should understand that the East Hampton Town law remains more lenient than in some other jurisdictions, where short-term rentals are banned altogether, for example.

With regard to restoring a sense of calm, next and more difficult on the town’s agenda should be taking on the out-of-control nightlife and bar scene. Though a recently revised town code on commercial gatherings gives officials a way to control outdoor events, for example, they have yet to take advantage it. 

Hotels, even those tucked in residential areas, have been allowed, unofficially, to grow and add amenities unrelated to the needs of overnight guests. Such illegal expansions began in earnest while Bill Wilkinson, a Republican, was supervisor and have only continued during the current Democratic town board majority. 

As new, deep-pocketed money pours into town, particularly in Montauk, it’s past time for a get-tough approach. Other than the rental registry, town officials seem afraid to take on the sources of so many of summer’s problems. We wonder how long it will be before the powers that be really begin putting residents first, instead of kowtowing to  businesses that leave little in return other than litter, noise, and chaos.

Plum Island, a federal facility off the North Fork within eyesight of the South Fork and coastal Connecticut, could soon be sold to private interests unless a broad effort by officials at several government levels and environmental groups succeeds in having it set aside for preservation, most wisely as a national wildlife refuge. 

In a plan approved by Congress to move the animal disease laboratory there to a site in Kansas, the 840-acre island would be disposed of at auction. Opposition to its sale is considerable in the region, and many residents hope the auction can be blocked and the island returned to a more natural state as parkland or a wildlife reserve. 

According to the Group for the East End, Plum Island provides critical nesting sites for the federally threatened and New York State endangered piping plover and is seasonal home to as many as 190 other bird species. If that weren’t convincing enough, 40 rare or protected plants can be found there. In addition, there is history, in the form of the 1870 Plum Gut Lighthouse and the 1897 Fort Terry army barracks and weapons batteries. 

The push to prevent the sale of the island received additional support this week when Representative Lee Zeldin renewed a House bill that would block the planned auction. Mr. Zeldin, who is seeking re-election in the fall, has been a consistent backer of conservation efforts, picking up on the work of former Representative Tim Bishop, an advocate for preservation whom he defeated in 2014. New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand, along with Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, also have introduced a bill like that of Mr. Bishop and Mr. Zeldin, transferring the island to the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Parks Service. 

When the Department of Homeland Security recommended to Congress that the lab should be moved to Kansas, years ago, the thinking was that the money raised by selling Plum Island to the highest bidder would help offset the cost of the new facility. However, Southold Town changed the island’s zoning in the hope of dissuading developers. A Southold law passed in 2013 would allow for only education, research, or recreation on the portion of the island now used for the animal disease lab, and it prohibits development of any kind on a remaining 600 acres. This was a shrewd move, effectively slashing the potential value of the island by severely limiting its possible use for housing or even as an exclusive golf course and resort, as none other than Donald Trump at one time was said to have contemplated.

Those favoring the island’s preservation say that because the potential income has been reduced, the island’s sale is no longer worth the cost of losing such a precious asset. The Senate and House bills would remove a stipulation that it be sold.

It is almost unthinkable now, as interest in improving Long Island Sound’s water quality — and in tamping down traffic and infrastructure demands on the twin forks — is on the rise that any form of new, intensive use could be tolerated on Plum Island. In decommissioning the laboratory and restoring as much as possible of the island’s natural state, there is a rare opportunity to turn back the clock, protect the Sound, and create something that can be enjoyed for generations to come. Doing everything possible to save Plum Island should be at the top of the priority list for the region.

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.

The South Fork’s school districts are beginning to finalize proposed budgets for the coming year, and some boards appear willing to ask voters to authorize going above the so-called 2-percent tax cap. As tough as this might be for some residents, it reflects the fact that in most cases there are few places to make further cuts in spending after years of forced belt-tightening. Ultimately, districts and taxpayers alike will have to wait for an overhaul of the way public schools are funded in New York State to get relief — and that could be a long time coming. 

Bridgehampton has said it will bring a roughly 9-percent tax levy increase to voters on May 17. It is anticipated that Amagansett also will seek to pierce the cap, with a 3.7-percent increase. Although all local districts will have annual balloting that day, it is not clear what the story will be in the other districts; more will be known by next week.

So far, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s tax cap has been all stick and no carrot. When he imposed it in 2011, the intention was to force local governments, municipalities as well as schools, to cut costs and perhaps to begin thinking about joining forces. From the outside, this seems to make sense, particularly on the administrative side. There is almost no plausible justification for the Wainscott School District to have its own part-time $55,000-a-year superintendent while the equally microscopic Sagaponack School District has its own superintendent, pulling down $53,793 annually. Then there is Amagansett, whose superintendent gets $188,000 a year plus a house and equipment allowance. Speculating about what would happen if districts were to merge, it’s clear that some people would lose jobs but the real cuts would most likely be made at the top. Perhaps this is why some administrators jealously protect the status quo.

More than tax levies, though, it is contrary to the very spirit of public education that some districts are swimming in money and enjoying adequate space in well-appointed buildings, while others, like Springs and to a certain measure East Hampton, are forced to struggle with growing populations and students with widely disparate abilities. As voters think about the tax hikes next month they might also ask themselves whether the time for far greater changes has finally arrived. 

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.