Several weeks ago, we briefly described an ostentatious party on one of East Hampton Town’s ocean beaches and suggested that a little more restraint by all concerned would not be a bad thing. At the time, we wondered how such an elaborate party — thumping reggae band and all — was allowed, but took it more as a curiosity than a symbol of an underlying problem with law enforcement.

As frequent evening beach visitors, it was inevitable that we would encounter more of the same, and a week later stopped at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett to find another party, this time with a three-piece, electrified calypso band playing a few steps off to the right, costumed hula performers, and guests wearing leis. The rest of the beach was oddly deserted.

Stopping in the parking lot to check the town code online confirmed what we had only half recalled: Amplified music is prohibited at large gatherings for which permits must be obtained. Driving on, we paused at Atlantic Avenue. The beach there was quiet, with a familiar summer evening contingent of people enjoying a picnic or just relaxing. “Refugees,” we thought, “from the racket at Indian Wells.”

At around 10 the next night, a Saturday, however, we dropped in on a friend’s clambake at Atlantic Avenue as guests were finishing their dinner around a bonfire and a D.J. played dance music. Nearby, a good dozen or more gatherings were happening, most with their own fires. Two town Marine Patrol officers were hanging around, and at one point asked the D.J. to lower the volume — and here we have to pause in the narrative to make a point.

Our friend had obtained and signed the necessary permit, which is unambiguous: “Assemblies that include amplified music shall not be permitted on any beach.” In asking that the music be turned down, the officers were exercising latitude that under the town code they simply did not have. Agree with the prohibition or not, that is the law.

It is difficult to say what went through the two officers’ minds as they allowed the music to go on, but it points to an apparent breakdown in town authority. Regardless of how you look at it, there is real reason for concern. Either the officers used inappropriate discretion, or they had been told by their superiors in the Police Department that this section of the law need not apply. And it was not a case of their being rushed or called to another location. During the hour or more that we were there, the officers hung around. After a long time in the cab of his truck, one emerged with a slip of paper and walked off into the dark in the opposite direction of the D.J. party, apparently to issue a citation to someone who had built a fire too close to a lifeguard stand.

Did the officers not know about the prohibition on amplified music? Or did they know the law but figure that since no angry calls had come in, they didn’t have to bother? Had someone told them to go easy on parties? Hard to say. What is clear, however, is that any town’s laws are only as good as how they are enforced; if that Saturday night at Atlantic Avenue Beach in Amagansett is any indication, the law is none too good.

What is unfortunate is that the town police log for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of that weekend showed 40 noise complaints. What if it became known that consistent, hefty fines were to be levied on those who fail to comply with the town’s party permits. You know, broken windows policing and all that. Were word to get out that the rules are being enforced, it might reduce the number of complaints and help free officers to respond to other, higher-priority incidents. And, of course, ignoring the law is not limited to the beaches.

Since a post-July 4 public uprising about tackling the summertime din, town officers have spoken out about public drunkenness and mayhem in general. It is very clear, though, that much more has to be done to make sure the get-tough words are heeded on the enforcers’ front lines.

A couple of weeks back on a Thursday evening a Star staff member sent a text message to one of the editors about a massive party on the beach at Atlantic Avenue in Amagansett, suggesting we had to see it to believe it. Arriving a little before 8 p.m., we were surprised and a little put out to see a uniformed attendant associated with the event who appeared to be blocking the entrance to the large public parking lot. Finding a parking spot near the beach access, we walked down onto the sand and looked to the east.

A couple of hundred guests, all dressed in white, were mingling around equally white-topped tables, served by white-dressed staff behind full bars, also white. Large white illuminated orbs lined the path from the public restrooms in the now guests-only parking lot. A reggae band was doing its thing as we climbed a lifeguard stand to get a better view. No, this wasn’t P. Diddy’s annual event, just something a bit more prosaic.

East Hampton’s beaches are long, and at this time of the year, plenty wide to accommodate such events, but this just seemed wrong. Too big, too ostentatious, if rather tasteful and swank. It appeared, on reflection, to be a fair summation of a lot of what this place seems to stand for, at least in the minds of some.

It’s hard to say whether such big events on the town’s beaches should be more strictly limited. This one, other than being something to behold, was really not much of a problem. Still, a little self-restraint by all concerned would not be a bad thing.

The latest developments in the United States Army Corps of Engineers project to build a 3,100-foot-long sandbag wall on the downtown Montauk oceanfront warrant close attention. Though a private lawsuit could still derail this massive boondoggle, the Corps, East Hampton Town officials, and the state appear to be moving forward. Recently described details concern pedestrian and vehicular access over the planned artificial dune and what happens to rainwater there. Barring a court ruling, work is expected to begin in October.

Now, unbelievably, the same people who brought us the Katrina disaster are considering installing some kind of a floodgate to allow rainfall and runoff to escape to the ocean. Sorry. We are not convinced.

From the start, the project has been marked by rule-bending, false claims, inadequate review, and, going back several years, an embarrassing, overstated back-of-the-napkin economic analysis. All this has not appeared to shake current town support. Politics plays a role; woe be the elected official who speaks out to block the effort then sees heavy damage caused by a hurricane or bad winter storm. But expediency comes at the expense of sound planning and a responsible answer to the long-term issue of erosion.

Downtown Montauk was built where it should not be. It’s that simple. No Army Corps seawall by itself is going to change that fact. The Corps’s poorly conceived project only delays the day of reckoning, which should have taken place after Hurricane Sandy’s near miss in 2012. Tough leadership is desperately needed, but it is not coming — from any level of government.

Voters can go to their polling places on Tuesday to give their respective school district budgets the thumbs-up or down, though the turnout is not expected to be large. In several places — Sag Harbor, Amagansett, and Montauk — there are contested races for school board positions; in others, the incumbents stand unopposed.

Over all, we sense a degree of satisfaction with the schools, the unexpected opt-out test mess notwithstanding. Complacency may come from a feeling of futility; budgets are sharply constrained by a state cap on tax increases, and curriculum largely set by the Department of Education. Disinterest may also play a role. A larger, consolidated educational system here might well spur board of education races and capture public interest, while providing financial and programmatic advantages. That, however, is not on Tuesday’s ballots.

In East Hampton, we are pleased to see John Ryan Sr. seek to return to the school board. The current group appears in lock-step with the district administration too frequently, reflexively defending its missteps, as in a recent spate of criticism from some Latino students’ parents over pressure they thought had been put on them to get their children to take the disputed Common Core tests. It is also vaguely unsettling that the three incumbents, Christina DeSanti, Liz Pucci, and Deme Minskoff, are seeking to retain their seats as a bloc. That alone might well be an argument in Mr. Ryan’s favor. However, his strong advocacy for a fully realized youth aquatic safely program is well worth voters’ returning him to the board for what would be a seventh term. Our picks are Mr. Ryan, Ms. Minskoff, and Ms. DeSanti.

Montauk’s race for one seat pits Carmine Marino Jr., a newcomer, against Diane Hausman, the school board president. Ms. Hausman has been a Montauk School Board member for 20 years. Mr. Marino is a Montauk fire commissioner who has made an issue of the school board’s need for more openness, a valid point. However, Ms. Hausman earns our endorsement in recognition of her experience and steady hand.

While Springs does not have a contested board position, an important referendum will be on the ballot: whether to use $2 million from a reserve fund for reconfiguring vehicle drop-off areas. We support this with misgiving; the last time the district took on a large project of this type, an unsightly and widely hated blacktop bus parking area was the community’s reward. The board must do better this time if the money is authorized on Tuesday, which it should be.

In Amagansett, the choice is between Mary Lownes, a 13-year incumbent, and Steve Graboski, a newcomer. Ms. Lownes should cruise to re-election.

Sag Harbor’s board race is a lively one, with five in the mix for three seats. Right off the bat, we cannot support Tommy John Schiavoni, who as a board member has opposed video recording of the public comment portion of board meetings for the flimsiest reasons. The other incumbent, Chris Tice, deserves re-election. Stephanie Bitis and James Sanford round out a good slate.

Ballot hours vary by district. A list of times can be found in this issue and on school websites. Whatever you decide and whomever you support, please vote.

If they did not know already, long-suffering residents of the East End, frustrated by helicopter noise, now truly know who their friends are — and who they are not.

East Hampton Town officials could find out soon if the set of new restrictions they adopted on the noisiest aircraft will go into effect before the summer season. A hearing is expected today in United States District Court in Central Islip in which opponents of the rules hope a judge will impose a restraining order and call for a trial. If the consortium of commercial interests, backed by the Federal Aviation Administration, prevails, it could be months, if not years, before anyone knows if the restrictions will be upheld.

If nothing else, the East Hampton Town Board’s move in imposing curfews and weekly trip limits on the louder classes of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft finally made the battle lines clear. On one side are all the elected municipal governments of the East End, the area’s Congressional delegation, and thousands of residents, all hoping for quieter skies. Opposing them are the National Business Aviation Association, the Analar Corporation, Associated Aircraft Group, Heliflite Shares, Liberty Helicopters, Eleventh Street Aviation, Helicopter Association International, Sound Aircraft Services, and, it seems, the F.A.A.

It should also be noted that, publicly at least, not a word has been heard from the supposedly put-upon passengers who would have to find other ways to get to the South Fork. So far the voices that have been loudest are the companies that are unwilling to invest in quieter, if perhaps more costly, aircraft to comply with what are reasonable solutions to a real noise crisis.

East Hampton Town officials must stand tough as the fight drags on.

The remarkable thing about the online blowup last week over Uber “ride sharing” service’s decision to stop operating in East Hampton Town is that both Uber and local officials are trying to solve the same problem.

Before you laugh, take a moment to consider that Uber’s phenomenal growth and success have been built on providing an alternative to taxi service, which can be spotty, inadequate, chaotic, overpriced, and unsafe. Town officials, after hearing all manner of complaints from about three years ago on, sought to do something about spotty, inadequate, chaotic, overpriced, and unsafe taxi rides, which were assumed to be the fault of out-of-the-area drivers.

East Hampton’s solution eventually was to require licenses and background checks for drivers and cab companies, as well as a local physical address in order for them to operate. It was the latter requirement that prompted Uber to pull the plug on Friday; neither it nor many of its drivers are based in East Hampton. The town board had assumed that the new requirements would help cut down on complaints if not eliminate them entirely, as well as reports of cabbies sleeping in their cars during the day while taking up parking spaces that would otherwise be used by shoppers.

The defensibility of the town’s residency requirement is uncertain. We can think of no other example of a business blocked from operating here because it is based elsewhere. Contractors such as plumbers, builders, and electricians from UpIsland work in East Hampton every day, subject to town licensing laws. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which the town would — or could — ban them, even if local tradespeople begged for it, the way some local taxi operators asked for help from the town.

A regional solution has been delayed as Suffolk officials try to implement a new law that would require all taxi drivers to have a county-issued license. This seems a step in the right direction. But whether, when the regulation becomes fully functional, Uber would consider its drivers subject to it is questionable; operating in 58 countries and with a market value estimated at $50 billion, it could well choose to fight instead.

Beyond all this, Uber and its competitors have clearly found a market for their services in East Hampton. An Uber spokesman interviewed in a television news report this week said that his company had provided service to 15,000 riders here last year. Town officials should acknowledge that some residents and visitors may want to use these services and for whatever reason avoid traditional cabs. An accommodation, one that does not improperly infringe on the rights of businesses no matter how unfamiliar, should be found.

—

This has been changed to reflect a clarification provided by Uber regarding the number of riders using its service in the Town of East Hampton in 2014.

It’s about the money. That was the clear takeaway from the reaction at a May 15 hearing on additional limits on large-lot house sizes proposed by the East Hampton Village Board. In one of the more heated board meetings we have seen of late, representatives of property owners, as well as a few owners themselves, objected in the strongest terms to possible rules changes that would tighten the formulas governing how large a house can be on lots of an acre or more.

The reductions would be substantial. For example, under the village code right now a new house on a 2.5-acre property can be as large as 11,000 square feet; if the board were to approve the changes only an 8,400-square-foot house would be allowed. All other things being equal, an 11,000-square-foot house is going to sell for a whole lot more than an 8,400-square-foot one, hence the howling.

The East Hampton Village Board, which showed signs of capitulating amid the onslaught, ominously keeping the record open for additional comments, should hang tough. Protecting the village’s charm and character must come first; accommodating billionaires and real estate investors must be of somewhat lower priority. That the proposal has earned the support of the Ladies Village Improvement Society, concerned as ever about our sense of place, is notable. Its view should not be discounted hastily.

But there is more. One of the most ludicrous statements to come from the phalanx of opponents at the hearing was from a paid consultant who said that large houses do not necessarily have an impact. This is patently false; the bigger the property, the bigger the demands for staff, maintenance, resources such as water, and the greater its ecological footprint in terms of waste and emissions. Consider the massive “trade parade” traffic jams, largely created by workers building, renovating, or simply tending the Hamptons’ large houses. Think, too, of the housing crisis now coming into sharp focus. There is certainly a relationship between the needs of those who cater to the rich and the difficulty mom-and-pop businesses have paying employees enough to live in the area. There is a significant problem here and it can only be exacerbated by ever-greater residential construction.

An interesting parallel can be found on Martha’s Vineyard. The Massachusetts island has had to cope with many of the same issues East Hampton and its neighbors are now experiencing. There, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, a powerful planning agency covering the island’s six townships, operates on a basic understanding that some projects are so big that they can have a regional impact. Most often, the commission studies subdivision proposals and the like, but from time to time it has ruled on large single-house residential projects as well. If big projects can be said to have a cumulative effect there, why not here?

East Hampton Village officials should not believe the hype. As for threats of litigation, it should be remembered that special interest lawsuits are often inevitable when officials stand up for the common good. Well-crafted limits on residential projects have a long history here, will prevail in court, and should be fully supported.

After a successful start buying watershed properties around Lake Montauk, the East Hampton Town Board is targeting land around Accabonac Harbor. Using money from the community preservation fund, the board and Department of Land Acquisition and Management have embarked on an ongoing effort to acquire and prevent development of a number of privately owned parcels in Springs that drain toward the harbor.

The importance of this initiative is underscored by a massive fish kill recently in parts of Peconic Bay, which has been attributed to runoff and other man-made causes. Concerns about water quality at Accabonac are not new; its southern reaches are off-limits to shellfishing in all but the winter months.

One aspect of recent town land buys, that some parcels have houses on them, has prompted some argument against acquisition. It is important to remember that in ecologically sensitive areas removing habitable structures is entirely in keeping with the goals of the community preservation fund law. And yes, the extra expense is justifiable and legal as long as the houses are removed.

To the town board, we say, buy them now while you still can.

We found ourselves stewing last week about a worsening situation on the Napeague stretch of Montauk Highway as three of four restaurants there, the Lobster Roll, the Clam Bar, and Cyril’s Fish House, grow ever more popular. During Memorial Day weekend, parked vehicles narrowed the roadway, creating unsafe passage for motorists and dangers for pedestrians.

As usual, the tie-ups were the worst at Cyril’s. The stop-and-go traffic extended about a half-mile to the east after staff there illegally cordoned off the road shoulder with more than 100 feet of orange cones to make room for taxicabs. Stuck waiting to get through the chaos, we wondered, if not this, just what would it take for officials to impose some semblance of control?

But it’s not just about what happens on Napeague. Successive generations of East Hampton Town officials have proven unable to tamp down the mayhem from Montauk Point to Wainscott as the summertime crowds descend. As one letter-writer put it last week, over Memorial Day weekend “. . . you may have witnessed a town out of control.” All this raises the question of whether our local government, as configured today, can meet the real-world demands of a 21st-century resort community. As Ken Walles, the author of the aforementioned letter, said, “Town officials need to be strictly held accountable and should not allow the continued misuse of our cherished resource.” And that is being polite.

So the issue is to decide just what effective government for the Town of East Hampton would be. Elements would obviously include more police on the streets as well as ordinance enforcement officers, but it would also have to include a shift in attitude among officials away from what appears to be too much deference to money-making ventures. Those who sit in Town Hall must remember just whom they were elected to represent — and whom they were not.

Such a change in control would come with a cost, of course, but we believe that public support for shifting budget priorities — and perhaps even higher taxes — could be attained if a quieter, saner community was the guaranteed reward.

East Hampton was at one time derisively called the Land of No. It is well past time for some of that get-tough spirit to return

A federal probe into Albany corruption has reached yet closer to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. A report this week from the International Business Times says that his administration has confirmed it is being investigated over ties between the state and Mr. Cuomo’s top campaign donor. This is the first time the ongoing examination into state graft has reached the governor’s office. Up to now, all the action has been at the State Legislature, with several elected officials under indictment, including former Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, Dean Skelos, the former Senate majority leader, and Mr. Skelos’s son.

Mr. Cuomo has not been implicated in wrongdoing. However, his office refused the publication’s Freedom of Information Law request for documents related to transactions between Glenwood Management and the state, citing — improperly, as we see it — a blanket exemption for documents involved in a law enforcement investigation. In doing so, Mr. Cuomo’s aides said that the administration was indeed a target of United States Attorney Preet Bharara, which had been suspected.

As has been Mr. Cuomo’s tendency toward dubious interpretations of the law, he is wrong on this as well. The right to withhold public records in a case like this was intended to allow police and other official investigators latitude to do their work; it was not intended to stymie the work of the news media or block interested citizens from knowing about the function of their governments. Notably, Robert Freeman, who runs the New York State Committee on Open Government, called the Cuomo position “ridiculous and contrary to the intent of the Freedom of Information Law.”

This is not surprising, coming from a governor who infamously shut down the Moreland Commission anticorruption effort, declaring that because he had set it up, he had the right to pull the plug. Maybe Mr. Cuomo believes all this, but New Yorkers should not.