Of all the possible outcomes for the much-ballyhooed agreement between Sag Harbor Village and the developers of the Watchcase condominiums on mandatory affordable housing, the deal now about to be completed is about as poorly realized as we could imagine.

If all goes as planned, the Sag Harbor Community Housing Trust, established to provide housing with money from the development firm, will buy an existing, nine-unit complex off Route 114 called the Cottages. The problem is that it will not provide even one new unit of affordable housing because the complex is at full occupancy. Contrast that with what could have been.

Back in 2007-8, when the developer was seeking final approval to convert the decrepit factory site to top-dollar apartments, it faced what it said was a big problem: The county required that one-fifth of the units would have to be affordable. This would have worked out to about 13 price-controlled apartments. It wasn’t surprising when the developer protested, claiming the requirement would be financially disastrous.

Many Sag Harbor retail and restaurant owners fell into line behind the developer, applauding when the village’s planning board voted to override the county mandate. They apparently feared that if the Watchcase firm were forced to rent 13 units at less than top dollar, it might walk away entirely from the project. We thought then, as we do now, that the developer was engaging in scare tactics and that its resistance was really about maximizing financial return and keeping the working class as far away as possible from its well-to-do future tenants. The site, as vast as it is, could well have been configured in a way to accommodate both.

Instead of providing 13 units, the developer offered a payola of $2.2 million for unspecified affordable housing elsewhere. Had the trust received the money at that time and broken ground on new housing, it might have been at least a partial success. As it stands now, the deal appears an abject failure. Not a single person or family has found new, sensibly priced housing in the six years that followed — and will not as things stand.

One puzzle throughout all of this is that then-Sag Harbor Mayor Greg Ferraris, who helped the company avoid its obligation to provide the housing by inappropriately inserting himself into planning board discussions at the time, is now a key player on the trust. He and other members of the group are pushing the wholly inadequate “cottages” plan —  which is outside the village line and in another school district, Wainscott, no less. While those supporting the Watchcase developer may have meant well, the results are nothing to be proud of now.

Every additional house or apartment that government can make available for this area’s working people and older residents at a cost they can afford is desperately needed. Those who put threats from the backers of the luxury complex ahead of the needs of the people who are the backbone of the community must be called out for doing so. Sag Harbor’s allowing so many affordable units to slip through its grasp, when the Watchcase investors had an obligation to provide them, should be a lesson to other local governments tempted to go soft on developers.

East Hampton Town will soon undertake an in-depth study of this region’s precarious Atlantic Coast and how it can better manage risk to property and environment protection. But the real question is whether, when the work is done, it will lead to meaningful change.

It is not like these questions are new; the United States Army Corps of Engineers has been trying to figure out what to do about eastern Long Island for more than 50 years, and the town itself completed a decade-long process that led to the adoption in 1999 of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (although it took another seven years to be approved by state and federal agencies). But no one has ever really answered the hard questions brought forward by sea level rise, and Hurricanes Irene and Sandy only increased the sense of urgency.

It is clear that existing regulations are not adequate. Following Sandy, town officials gave highly questionable “emergency” permission for erosion-response projects, some for prohibited permanent, or “hard,” structures. The looming Army Corps fortification of downtown Montauk comes right up to the line between what is permissible and what is not, and it binds the town and county to costly annual maintenance at a dollar figure that cannot accurately be anticipated, as well as unknown millions more for the project’s eventual removal.

Meanwhile, private construction in danger zones continues, which will only add to the expense when the bills come in for future publicly funded rescue efforts. Though there are some bright spots, such as a planned buyout of low-lying properties on Lazy Point in Amagansett, the overriding status quo can fairly be said to show that our collective head is still buried in the sand.

Ideally, the $500,000 study about to get under way will address the future of the coastal portons of East Hampton Town and provide clear arguments for retreat, where it is called for. We have been down this road before, however, notably when the town took over from the state after adopting its own coastal hazard policy. The rub will be if the current town board and those that follow will be able to heed the study’s advice.

History suggests that nothing short of a total disaster will really change how those who live here think about our relationship with the coast, but this new initiative provides a glimmer of hope.

A battle in Sagaponack about what should and should not be allowed on reserved farmland has pitted a developer against village officials. Although on first look it appears a very localized matter, it points to a greater and evolving problem.

Years ago, when the East End towns and Suffolk County first began buying up building rights on good-quality agricultural land or seeking to get these properties into reserves through the subdivision process, the belief was that by putting some money into the right hands and enacting strict limits, farming would be assured in perpetuity. What the well-meaning officials did not foresee was the continuing boom in real estate prices and the desire of the well-to-do for expansive lawns or for polo grounds or horse stables, which are generally permissible on these reserves.

In the Sagaponack example, as reported in The Southampton Press, a developer planning three houses had an irrigation system installed at considerable expense on an adjacent 10.5-acre plot in an agricultural easement, which apparently would have precluded its use as a lawn. Unfortunately nothing in the easement, or many like it elsewhere, requires that the land be actually used for crop production. So today we see parcels that were once considered saved are now little more than an amenity for someone’s weekend palace.

Groups, especially the Peconic Land Trust, have been pointing this out for some time. The trust has begun to actively recommended that when governments acquire rights to productive land, they pay enough to obtain assurances that it will always be available for real farming. Looking back at previous land deals and easements similar to the disputed one in Sagaponack, the trust says money could be used selectively to offer additional payments to landowners for expanded rights with food production the ultimate goal.

Like much of the country, the East End is experiencing a welcome renaissance in farming, with jobs being created, and good, healthy, local food ending up on residents’ tables. More can be done to see that prime and productive land remains under the plow, and officials should be eager to see that it always does.

East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and the Town Hall legal team are on the right track in looking at how to amend town law to head off further conversions of hotels and motels into hybrids that include nightclubs and accommodations. According to the town, there are some 70 hotels here whose owners might someday seek to expand into the lucrative bar trade, which could create traffic, crowds, noise, litter, and, in some cases, water pollution problems, which have already been the result.

In one sense, a new law should not be needed since the rules already in place would seem to have precluded changes of the scale seen, for example, when Montauk’s 30-something-room Ronjo Motel morphed into the 300-plus person Montauk Beach House and pool club. The thing is, without very specific, hardline prohibitions, almost anything is possible, depending on who is setting the tone on Pantigo Road. Details on the changes are yet to be finalized, but, in concept, it is an idea well worth supporting.

Had New York’s State Senate passed a police reform bill, one that had been repeatedly approved by the Assembly, the officer most directly responsible for the death of Eric Garner on Staten Island last summer might now be facing criminal charges. Instead, by failing to change the rules, which would have required independent special prosecutors in cases when police kill civilians, the Senate left in place an inadequate and bad system.

The problem is not just that police have killed unarmed civilians with doubtful justification, but that many members of the country’s minority groups do not trust the legal system as a whole, and that they have reason not to do so.

A proposal this week from State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman could help resolve some of the public anger, but it would depend on Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who so far has had an unenthusiastic response. Considering that two recent unnecessary deaths occurred in New York State, Mr. Cuomo’s equivocation is deeply disappointing.

Taking the matter to the media this week, Mr. Schneiderman pointed to the inherent conflict of interest between prosecutors and police when an officer is the accused. In a system that depends on trust between the police and those they are sworn to protect, the close ties between law enforcement and district attorneys undermine public confidence. “When the trust between the police and the communities they serve and protect breaks down, everyone is at risk,” Mr. Schneiderman said.

As an answer for the short term, Mr. Schneiderman proposed an executive order from the governor under existing state law that would give the attorney general’s office temporary authority to investigate future incidents of the killing of unarmed civilians by police. Looking further out, he added his voice to the many seeking leadership from the Legislature allowing for special prosecutors in cases of this kind.

Police unions and New York City district attorneys reacted angrily to Mr. Schneiderman’s call, insisting that the existing methods of investigation and prosecution remain up to the task. But theirs is a shallow reading of the tragic facts, more inclined toward protecting turf in the case of the D.A.s and shielding officers from being held accountable. Such response does nothing to speak to the public’s swelling outrage. And, unfortunately, the division falls along political lines, with many state Democrats supporting the idea of a special prosecutor and Republicans opposing it.

Mr. Cuomo needs to come out of the shadows and take a stand for the people of his state — all the people. One way to quickly do that would be for him to issue the temporary executive order Mr. Schneiderman called for. To its ongoing shame, the governor’s office had no immediate comment on Mr. Schneiderman’s request. Instead, it churned out a statement repeating the governor’s call that broad options be explored, presumably in another study or commission whose outcome, given recent history, he is likely to micromanage. He must do better. 

East Hampton Town officials have their hands full of pressing matters these days, none more important perhaps than helping to assure places to live for those residents who are the backbone of the community — the work force. In a recent report, an appointed study committee told the town board in no uncertain terms that much more affordable housing is needed here and offered ideas for how it could be achieved.

The committee reported that waiting lists for lower-priced rentals and town-assisted house purchases are long, with far too few vacancies to give much hope to those whose names are on them. Moreover, for every person who has signed up, there is another who either does not know about the programs or has chosen to go it alone.

As employees and employers alike know, year-round, open-market rental rates are generally too high for most families here and are almost always out of reach for single-earner households. With a seasonal economy and few high paying white-collar jobs, many have little hope of better incomes. Adding to the sense of crisis is a widespread belief that the proliferation of listings on short-term vacation rental websites has greatly diminished the stock of permanent housing as landlords opt for greater returns with less wear and tear on their properties.

Among the recommendations in the committee report were changes that could help provide incentives for property owners to create affordable housing. These include the adoption of a multifamily zoning classification with higher maximum incomes than now allowed. Safe seasonal residences, along the lines of dormitories with common kitchens, could be allowed as an alternative to the current universe of illegal and often dangerous shared houses. Detached-garage and basement apartments, generally not possible under the town code, might be another source, provided they could be strictly monitored and kept out of the summer rental pool. Also on the report’s laundry list are a down-payment process for those seeking assistance and sweeteners for developers who would build price-controlled apartments on commercial sites.

One suggestion by the committee that we find fault with is that the community preservation fund be amended to allow funding of housing. If a transfer tax is to be developed for such a purpose it should be independent of the preservation fund. Looking deeper, there is no evidence that, had the land-buying program never gone into effect, there would be less of an affordable-housing crisis. Nor is there any proof that the preservation program had an upward effect on real estate prices or that lands purchased with money from the transfer tax would otherwise have been used for work-force residences. Indeed, and by far, the fund has been used to buy what would otherwise have held luxury, single-family houses. It is only lately that smaller lots have been targeted for purchase by the town, and many of them have been ecologically constrained or critical watershed areas, like those around Lake Montauk.

With that caveat, the recommendations should be taken seriously.

We hesitate to trot into the woods, so to speak, on the issue of deer, a subject that generates strong and conflicting emotions. Nevertheless, comment must be made about a pending change in state law that would allow weekend hunting here for deer in January.

Few reasonable people here disagree with the observation that there are far more deer than there used to be within East Hampton Town and Village limits. Each fall, dozens of vehicles and deer come into expensive, and for the deer, often-fatal contact on the roads. Meanwhile, residents and visitors suffer from a host of tick-borne diseases, the rise of which has, at least in part, been linked to the growth of the deer population.

Where once you could garden and raise fruit trees on open lots, our charming East End now resembles a gulag, with high wire fences lining roads and house lots, all intended to keep the four-footed marauders at bay.

Among the steps officials have considered to control the deer is the expansion of recreational hunting in January to include Saturday and Sunday, and to allow bow hunters as close as 150 feet from houses and other structures. While the bow-hunting change does not seem dangerous — though the sport is said to result in more injured deer — weekend firearms hunting is something that does not sit right.

For a place in which Saturdays and Sundays are pretty much the whole outdoor enchilada in winter, making the woods effectively off-limits for most people, even for part of the year, is unwise. Consider for a moment the various community organizations that organize guided trail walks more or less year-round.

Though hunting is a long established tradition here, it cannot provide the reduction of the deer population that is warranted. The so-called four-poster insecticide stations intended to kill ticks do not resolve all the problems that too many deer create, and proposed sterilization is an unproven method that would be very expensive.

Given the emotional nature of the debate, it is not surprising that officials would tiptoe around the matter. The day will come, however, when they have to admit that these half-measures have not worked and in the end recognize that a carefully managed effort by professional sharpshooters is necessary if meaningful and humane reduction of the deer population is to be realized. The sooner, the better.

Hard to believe that a few short years ago, people around here were wondering whether there would ever be enough scallops again for meaningful commercial harvest. Well, now East Hampton knows those fears were unfounded. A bumper crop has been found in the bays and harbors that is so plentiful that the retail price for a pound of the succulent, sweet meats has been around $20.

There are so many scallops that an East Hampton Town Trustee pilot project to collect the emptied shells for return to the waterways was met with so much success that a mound of them drew complaints from neighbors at Three Mile Harbor and will soon be moved elsewhere. Such a problem would have been unimaginable in the days when baymen and women just about gave up their dredges.

Some time back, we wrote about making scallops the poster child for the restoration of local estuaries to their former glory. No one can yet say exactly why these gems of the bays have returned, but we truly hope that conditions remain to their liking. 

One of the most fascinating aspects of the new approach to regulating noise from aircraft that use East Hampton Airport is that it is not really new. Ken Lipper and Peter Wolf, who took it on their own initiative to propose ways of curbing air traffic, identified a portion of the town’s comprehensive plan in advocating a community-first vision of the airport. Though the strict restrictions they have proposed, along with those about to come from a town advisory committee, may grab the headlines, their idea that the facility should be run to satisfy the broadest possible community interest is compelling.

The pair stated that East Hampton Airport should be returned to its traditional noncommercial status. This is sure to anger the several helicopter and seaplane services that have profited from expanded use of the airport. However, Mr. Lipper and Mr. Wolf, as well as a top law firm they have hired, say the town has every right to adopt the restrictions they propose once free of promises made in exchange for money from the Federal Aviation Administration, some of which expire at the end of the year.

The essential question Mr. Lipper, Mr. Wolf, and many others ask is who benefits from avoiding the several-hours-long weekend trip on the Long Island Expressway by traveling by helicopter. Does the convenience of well-off fliers justify the disruption their luxury creates for those on the ground? The answer is most emphatically “no.”

The path appears to be set for the town’s airport committee to issue formal recommendations as early as next week. Mirroring in many aspects the ideas floated by Mr. Lipper and Mr. Wolf, they could call for eliminating, or at least the sharp reduction of, helicopter landings; limiting the airport’s hours of operation, perhaps to between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. most days, and limiting fixed-wing aircraft landings and takeoffs to as few as four per hour.

The draft document is expected to say that the highest value of the airport is its recreational use by residents. According to the draft, long-distance transportation, chiefly jets used by second-home owners and summer visitors from other parts of the country and abroad, should be considered a “distant second.” Commuter trips, as the committee appears set to conclude, are of “little social value to the community” and ample, if more time-consuming, alternatives exist.

In effect, the view is: Let them ride the Long Island Rail Road, fly into another airport, or enjoy the company of those whose pockets are not quite so deep as they snake along the Long Island Expressway. We say, why not?

Looking at the town’s comprehensive plan, the 2005 document plainly states that nothing should be allowed at the airport that would “encourage growth in operations” or lead to “environmental harm.” Presumably this includes the impact of noise on those people and creatures living below. It also says the emphasis should be on safety and noise abatement, while it offers nothing to assure the convenience and profits of helicopter operators.

On a separate note: Tom Twomey’s unexpected death on Nov. 16 should not go unremarked in this regard. As a private pilot and lawyer with personal and professional ties to some airport businesses, Mr. Twomey was a key player there for many years. Lately, he had been at the lead of an absolutely necessary rapprochement between propeller-plane owners like himself and anti-noise activists, recognizing that burgeoning commercial helicopter traffic was a common enemy. He was also a key, if behind-the-scenes voice for the tough, yet conciliatory approach to the Federal Aviation Administration that is now favored by town officials. His leadership will be missed, but the reasoned path he had begun to lay out is clear.

That the state of protections for the environment is broken is obvious from a recent notice from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on the proposed Army Corps of Engineers project to bolster the downtown Montauk oceanfront.

The precarious concern for the natural world becomes clear in a single line, in which the D.E.C. declares that the 3,100-foot-long sandbag seawall will not have a significant effect. This came in the form of a “negative declaration” under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, once the gold standard of serious analysis. Comments on a state permit, which is necessary for the work to proceed, will be accepted in writing at the D.E.C.’s Stony Brook office until Dec. 19.

The numbers are staggering. Approximately 14,200 five-and-a-half-foot-long permeable fabric bags are to be used. They are to be filled with 51,000 cubic yards of material from an unspecified inland sand mine and covered with 20,000 yards of actual beach sand stockpiled during the excavation for the seawall itself. You might call it icing on the sandbag cake. In addition, a new beach berm is to be built 50 feet seaward of what is today the water’s edge. What the berm will be constructed of remains unclear. And what happens when the bags inevitably are exposed in a storm and are torn apart, spilling their less-desirable contents, no one will say.

This is a giant project, one that will by definition affect nearby properties, sea life, and birds, as well as beachgoers. To say it is not significant is a dangerous mistake, abetted, one can assume, by the fact that federal, and not local, money will pay for the work. Underscoring our belief that this type of work absolutely does have an environmental cost, a Suffolk Supreme Court justice recently ruled that the Village of East Hampton was wrong when it declared a similar, if much, much smaller, erosion-response project at Georgica Beach to have been without significant impact. This irony is worth keeping in mind when the day comes that the Montauk fix turns into a disaster.

To be sure, doing nothing about the increasingly threatened first row of motels and residences in downtown Montauk would have an environmental effect as a cascade of demolished buildings eventually plunged into the ocean. But the claim by the D.E.C., Army Corps, and others that so massive an attempt to protect them will have no impact is not credible.

What emerges is a disturbing picture of several overlapping bureaucracies seeking to save structures without fully studying the consequences. We are sorry that the East Hampton Town Board has been unable to muster the foresight, and courage, to insist that such study be undertaken, but perhaps that would have been too much to expect under the pressure to do something. We wonder what it will take to get the state back in the environmental protection business when it comes to coastal projects.