Town officials have struck the right balance in deciding in whose interest the East Hampton Airport and the skies for miles around it will be managed.

After years, if not decades, of deference to commercial demands, the town board last week proposed tough rules that put residents first. Board members, especially Coucilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, who spearheaded a monumental effort, deserve gratitude. Thanks comes not only from the immediate community but from the many thousands of people who live in the North and South Forks’ other towns and villages and have had to put up with aircraft noise for far too long.

East Hampton’s proposed solutions center on strict limits on when loud aircraft can land and take off, and how often. The noisier ones, including almost all makes and models of United States-certified helicopters, would be banned from the airport between 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. year round. Helicopters, except those summoned for emergencies, would be prohibited from May 1 through September, while other aircraft classified as noisy would be banned from noon Thursday through noon Monday and limited to a single trip per week during the high season. A hearing on the rules is planned for March 5 at LTV Studios in Wainscott.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of all this is that the voices of protest and threat of legal action have come almost exclusively from those with a financial stake in maintaining unlimited access to the airport. The private, recreational pilots who had, perhaps reflexively, opposed anything having to do with meaningful noise controls have for the most part seen the light — and a common enemy in the for-profit helicopter companies. As for all the well-heeled passengers who fly in on all those leather-seated noisemakers, cold drinks in hand? No one has heard a peep from them so far.

Expect the legal fight over the new limits to be long, hard, and expensive. East Hampton Town officials should proceed with confidence, knowing that residents here and across the East End have their backs.

New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has taken on the state’s public school teachers, and they are firing back — hard. It’s about time.      

Schools and students have struggled under Mr. Cuomo’s signature 2-percent tax increase cap. Now, in his 2015 budget, the governor has proposed education policy changes linking half of a teacher’s evaluation to students’ standardized test scores. The greatest flaw in this disastrous reform is the fact that test results can depend on socioeconomic factors, notably wealth, and that linking teachers’ careers to scores could provide a strong disincentive for them to work with the state’s neediest students.

Mr. Cuomo has proposed increasing state education aid by as much as 5 percent for schools that sign on to the reforms. Rich districts could perhaps afford to sidestep them, but poorer districts, desperate for cash, might not have that luxury. He also has proposed sweetening the landscape for charter schools, which can draw away scarce funding, and he supports a backdoor path by which tax dollars could go to private and religious institutions.

As one education scholar said, the Cuomo plan would make teaching in the State of New York a very high-risk career choice. “You have made us the enemy,” 7 of the top 10 New York State teachers in the last decade wrote in a joint letter to the governor. The head of the New York State United Teachers union said, “He has declared war on the public schools.” This at a time when educators and students need all the support that can be mustered to cope with a rapidly changing world and altered job market.

One can see plenty of politics here. Teacher evaluations and school vouchers are popular with some Republicans interested in education reform. Mr. Cuomo’s 2-percent tax cap could be a message, intended for a future presidential campaign, that even though he is a Democrat he has reduced taxes in a traditionally liberal, high-tax state like New York and can do it anywhere. Unfortunately, the governor’s ambition has gotten in the way of sound policy.

What is called for now is a truce. Teachers have a tough enough job without having the governor as adversary-in-chief. Mr. Cuomo should rethink his education agenda to make it fair and especially provide for those school districts in greatest need of help.

Among the wild-eyed robins feeding in a holly bush outside our office window this week we spotted a cedar waxwing. A well-dressed fellow, he perched in sharp contrast to the tatty-looking, larger robins pulling greedily at the red berries. Below his buff-colored shoulders, two white lines, like pinstripes, ran down toward his tail. The pointed tuft atop his head stood crisp and proud.

Winter brings birds close. Those berries, less desirable perhaps than were available when the weather was better, are good enough. For the waxwing and his companions, the robins, they were worth sticking around for despite the faces at the window, looking outward in wonderment.

A happy outcome appears assured for the Springs General Store, whose operator was faced with the prospect of shutting its doors due to a pending sale of the property. Now, as the last minute neared, an “angel” buyer apparently has emerged who will allow Kristi Hood to keep the store open. This welcome denouement may be the exception to the rule, where places and properties important to the community are threatened about as fast as real estate prices rise. And, thinking about it, there is a wide gulf between where the local historical societies leave off and the community preservation fund picks up into which places like the Springs General Store can fall.

This preservation gap is not unique to East Hampton. In Sag Harbor a while ago when the Bay Street Theater was threatening to decamp to Southampton, for example, the question was raised if the C.P.F. could be tapped to help keep it on Bay Street. The answer was no — perhaps wisely, since the more latitude public officials have to dip into such dedicated funds the more excuses they are likely to find to do so. Still, the problem remains, because the preservation fund is more or less precluded from being used for commercial ventures.

On Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., one can find a model of how important assets that may not meet the criteria for environmental or historical protection can be saved. Since 1975 the island’s private, nonprofit preservation trust has acquired, preserved, and managed endangered landmarks. These have included a general store, a chapel, a carousel, a grange hall, a former library, and even a catboat, one of three remaining by a renowned island designer. Funds have come from donations as well as from rentals of some of the properties for weddings, parties, concerts, and theater and dance performances. Other properties owned by the Martha’s Vineyard Trust include a working farm with affordable housing, a newspaper office, a gallery, and a shipyard chandlery.

This is something that would be terrific to see here. If there were a wish list of places we would think worthy, it might include an example of a Montauk Leisurama house, the Gwathmey houses on Bluff Road in Amagansett, the Sag Harbor Cinema, examples of the working waterfront, any of the little-used chapels scattered here and there, certain farm stands, artists’ studios, and houses in Amagansett’s Devon Colony and the Seven Sisters in Montauk. The list could go on.

Mind you, this is not to impugn the good work of community minded individuals or the existing historical societies and the managers of the community preservation fund. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that there is more to maintaining a sense of place than the most obvious and significant properties. It is something to think about as time and real estate pressure surge ever onward.

More than a week after the snow from the blizzard that pounded East Hampton and the rest of Long Island began to be hauled away, one aspect of the official preparations and response should be examined.

As the storm approached, local, county, and state offices issued separate warnings. At the same time, the various police departments were passing along information of their own. Ordinary citizens could have been forgiven for becoming confused. Was there a driving curfew at 7 p.m., or was it at 9? What exactly did the state of emergency mean we were supposed to do — or not do? When was it safe to venture out? It was nearly impossible to say. Then things got really confusing around dark when Suffolk Executive Steve Bellone’s voice was heard via an automated telephone call reminding residents about an order from the governor shutting all roads down at 11 p.m.

Conceding that there is little that can be done about what Riverhead and Albany may do when the next storm approaches, it appears that our local authorities could do a better job of coordinating their efforts and getting out consistent advice. It might make sense for East Hampton and Southampton officials, including those in the respective villages, to designate a single public information officer whose job it would be to remove ambiguity from important announcements about driving bans, power outages, and, in the case of hurricanes, community shelters or evacuations.

As things worked out, Southampton lifted its 7 p.m. road closing well before the other jurisdictions did, even though many people who work there may live in East Hampton, where driving was still prohibited. Local conditions may have justified this, but it left some residents wondering what to do, when it was reasonable to venture out to get a few important things done, resupply with food, or make essential appointments.

Then, as the snow began to finally stop, plow crews took to the roads in what was a exceptionally challenging job to restore some sense of normal. Their efforts are well appreciated, but even they could have benefited from better communication with the public — notably including during the aftermath, when some hamlet main streets were closed as the giant snowbanks were scooped up to be hauled away.

In an age when information, even faulty information, can be disseminated in an instant it is important that officials get it right from the start. Making clear who is supposed to issue what statements in the event of bad weather and other emergencies would go a long way to reassuring the public that all is well.

What to do about large commercial vehicles left overnight on residential properties has plagued Town Hall going back to the Wilkinson administration. Now, after protracted discussions among town board members and various segments of the public, a more or less reasonable policy appears near. The process of working out some new limits on trucks has been conducted with respect for all sides and a minimum of personal distraction, and this speaks well of the tenor of the town board as now configured.

Let us say first, that our own view regarding truck parking differs from that of those who have said these commercial vehicles are unwelcome neighbors and hurt property values. For us, the real issue is whether a property is wrongly used as a place of business, not what is parked there. As East Hampton Town Councilman Fred Overton said recently, many of the people who own these trucks are the same people who answer ambulance calls or put out fires. For some, he said, holding down more than one job, often one that requires a sizable vehicle, may be the only way to make ends meet.

Then, too, East Hampton has a long tradition of working people keeping the tools of their trade at home. Think of commercial trap fishermen who store nets and long wooden stakes in their yards. To say that house lots are not the place for parking or stockpiling much other than a family’s personal vehicles runs counter to that tradition. Sterile suburbia, we’d like to think, is still someplace way west of the Shinnecock Canal.

In a community where so much of the economic base comes from people who work in the trades, be it carpentry, landscaping, house painting, pool care, or a host of other jobs, it is unfortunate that some residents sound as if they are willing to hurt others. Also unfortunate would be the chance that the new rules could give an additional advantage to the large contracting firms, which are more likely to already have their own appropriate sites for parking.

In its recent revision of the draft ordinance the town board narrows in on the problem. The law would ban vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 12,000 pounds or greater, with an 18-month phase-out period for locally licensed professionals who own vehicles up to a 14,000-pound weight rating. Pickup trucks would be exempt. All others that exceed the maximum figure would have to be parked on a commercial property. This would effectively remove box trucks, larger panel vans, delivery vehicles, and most dump trucks from residential areas except when they are on a job.

Banning commercial vehicle parking should be just a first step. Additional effort must be taken to enforce meaningful controls on the business use of residential property — and, frankly, we see noisy, overflowing bars and de facto rooming houses as the more significant concern. At the same time, the town might want to provide reasonable-cost parking and staging areas for contractors — a concept that has been floated in the past. If East Hampton’s small-business owners are going to be asked to shoulder a financial burden to make their neighborhoods more attractive, the community should be willing to provide something in return.

Attention in Albany may be focused on the apparent downfall of the Legislature’s top Democrat, Sheldon Silver, in a corruption scandal that cuts very close to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, but the critically important work of settling a budget for the coming fiscal year goes on. Two recent reports from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation have raised valid questions about the agency’s capabilities where wildlife is concerned and painted a picture of it as a failed agency.

The most disturbing report came at the end of the year and said that without aggressive action as many as 186 animal species could be imperiled in the state within 10 years. The other described the state’s ocean and estuary waters as in a state of crisis and said greater efforts were necessary to head off human impact, habitat degradation, and climate change. Sadly, Mr. Cuomo’s budget offers little in the way of good news in these regards. The D.E.C. simply needs a lot more money right away and perhaps a top-to-bottom redesign for the long haul. Here’s why.

The D.E.C. manages a huge range of properties, including about 4.5 million acres of land, more than 300 boat launching and fishing sites, 102 flood-control structures, 52 campgrounds, 12 fish hatcheries, 4 camps, 2 environmental education centers, and 1 tree nursery. That’s just the hardware.

On the program side, the agency oversees coastal projects, pollution control, hunting, fishing, mining, oil extraction, air quality, and even runs what amounts to its own armed police force. In Mr. Cuomo’s budget for the coming fiscal year, funding for the D.E.C. is increased by an insignificant 1.2 percent to $898 million. The spending plan’s priorities, too, seem out of touch, with the focus on industrial site cleanups, oil spill preparedness, farmland preservation in the Southern Tier and Hudson Valley, parks infrastructure, and public access. Needed or not, the budget also includes $50 million for improvements at the state fairgrounds outside Syracuse. Remember, this is at a time when the agency’s staffing levels are down about 10 percent from their peak and funding off by nearly a quarter from that of pre-Great Recession days.

For those concerned with wildlife, visiting migratory species, and marine ecosystems, there is little to be happy about in the near-term D.E.C. budget. Looking further out, things do not get much better. Capital spending increases slightly for 2016, then begins to fall off in subsequent years. The Environmental Protection Fund, which is supposed to help pay for critical habitat preservation and other programs, will see a modest increase of $10 million, which is far from enough.

That the D.E.C. is overtasked is clear, and the vast span of its responsibilities can lead to some peculiar conflicts. For example, it is both the lead agency for the Army Corps’s downtown Montauk erosion-control project and the regulator of the sand mines from which the raw material for the project will be dug. It was little surprise that the D.E.C. declared that the Montauk plan could go ahead without formal environmental review.

Breaking up the D.E.C. into several parts might be the best hope for the New York environment. In one scenario, one might think of one division as a regulatory agency concerned with pollution, extractive industries, and human health. Another might be responsible for activities such as hunting and fishing. And a third, and perhaps most important, would concentrate on the state’s wildlife and wild places.

As the two troubling reports indicate, the D.E.C. that New York has now is just not working.

Just when we thought the plan to bolster the Montauk oceanfront with thousands of sandbags could not get any worse, it got worse. Time and the desire of town officials not to have the work take place during the summer have conspired, prompting the United States Army Corps of Engineers to go ahead with only half the job.

The corps is now to start in March on a 1,200-foot-long section of beach on the eastern side of Montauk’s downtown with work ending by Memorial Day weekend — just in time for the start of hurricane season. This is an incredibly irresponsible plan that could expose the more precariously situated properties to the west to even greater risk than they now face.

The phenomena known as downdrift scouring appears well understood to everyone who knows anything about coastal processes, except, it seems, East Hampton Town officials and the Army Corps. Despite arguments that the sandbags are a “soft solution” to erosion or merely temporary, they will actually function as a hardened seawall for the duration that they remain on the beach. This means that in the case of a storm with a strong easterly ocean surge, the section of the row of motels and condominiums already hanging nearly at the brink will be rapidly undermined. The risk is simply too high and, apparently, not fully understood.

When a number of East Hampton neighbors spoke up at a recent meeting about their objections to a request for a garage from the owners of a house being built on Mill Hill Lane, they may well have been speaking for many residents of the South Fork who are increasingly upset about oversized construction on small lots. As smaller lanes in the villages have become more and more desirable, investors and new part-timers have started tearing down serviceable, if modest, dwellings and putting up far larger ones.

    East Hampton Village officials have changed the laws several times with the intent of reducing the effect of houses that seem to loom over the streets or nearby houses. The intent has been to maintain the village’s characteristic open feel, where houses are set with ample breathing room between one another.  

    With land values pushing ever higher, there is considerable pressure for developers or house-flippers to maximize their returns. At the same time, plenty of people have bought into a more-is-more view of how large a house should be and what they need to be comfortable. Unfortunately, the rules still allow homeowners to have what their hearts desire even when it encroaches on those who live close by and changes the very nature of the community. Complaints about mini-mansions are not new. What has changed is that with the returning economy a hulking structure is no longer in some distant subdivision; rather, it is going in right next door.

    And it’s not just in East Hampton Village. Things are getting out of hand in Sag Harbor, where redevelopment of side streets is going like gangbusters. Even an old church there appears as if it were being blown up like a balloon. Think about Bluff Road in Amagansett, where crenellated behemoths are going in lickety-split. Along Old Montauk Highway in Montauk there are similarly oversized projects under way. In Bridgehampton, old farm fields are now crammed with nearly identical six-bedrooms.

    Woe to those elected officials who would dare to stand in the way of the real estate juggernaut, but that is exactly what they must do. Retaining the South Fork villages and hamlets’ architectural integrity should remain a priority. Putting further constraints on how much space any one house can claim is the right place to start.

The role of the East Hampton Town citizens advisory committees appears to be up for re-evaluation. During a town board meeting last week the point was made that perhaps the time had come to look again at an order that has prevented the committees from communicating with other town-appointed boards and government agencies since 2012.

The committees had more or less been banned from directly addressing other parts of government in a letter from then-Supervisor Bill Wilkinson. According to Mr. Wilkinson, C.A.C.s had targeted individual businesses, spoken out in seemingly official capacities at public hearings, encouraged their members to exert pressure by attending justice court proceedings, and independently petitioned state lawmakers. In the warning, he reminded members that they were supposed to be advisers to the town board, offering their opinions on policy matters, and not to be advocates for or against specific projects within their putative jurisdiction.

That these committees might be permitted again to offer opinions on matters before other boards, like the planning, zoning, and architectural review boards, seems to be under consideration, but it should be approached extremely cautiously. Any changes have to preserve the firewall between elected officials and the key land-use boards to the greatest extent possible.

The fact is, as now-Supervisor Larry Cantwell said recently, the members of the citizens advisory committees are “creatures of the town board.” This means that any pressure a C.A.C. might bring to the review of matters before other boards could carry similar perceived authority. It also should go without saying that petitioning an outside government agency instead of working through the town board should be off-limits for the C.A.C.s as it is 0apt to cause confusion or be counterproductive. The town board is not supposed to meddle in the deliberations of the appointed boards; neither should the C.A.C.s.

The advisory committees can provide a vital way for the most highly localized concerns to reach the town board. But they should be prevented from the chance of exerting influence on behalf of the people who appointed them. As town board proxies, the committees should not weigh in on development plans and variance requests unless the manner in which their members are appointed is changed to avoid this potential impropriety. How to do this is a good question; longer terms for members might be one approach. Some form of members’ lottery could be another. But in the absence of immediate answers, the committees must reserve their comments for the town board alone.