More than $15,000 was raised on Sunday during a show of classic cars and lifted trucks organized by friends and family of the late Tyler Valcich of Montauk, who died in May of an apparent suicide. All of the money is to be set aside for mental health services for young people here through the Greater East Hampton Education Foundation. Those involved in what is planned as an annual event deserve a big round of applause for turning a personal tragedy into something good to the extent possible under the circumstances.

The sum raised so far in Mr. Valcich’s name is to be targeted for counseling and preventing young people’s lives from reaching a point of crisis. Though $15,000 may not seem like all that much these days, by the standards with which public mental health services for all people, not just the young, are funded, it is a considerable amount and bodes well.

As far as options for troubled students go, things have been improving here since the 2012 suicide of 16-year-old David Hernandez Barros. There has been a slight increase in funding from the state for the South Fork, and some additional money has been put in school budgets, though far from enough.

Separately, Paddlers for Humanity announced earlier this month that it was giving $80,000 to several South Fork schools to help combat bullying and provide intervention services. Such gifts are essential as districts make tough choices in an effort to stay within the state’s annual 2-percent tax-levy cap. Private donations, like those that came in during Sunday’s car show, may mean the most because they not only help pay for services but remind officials that young minds matter and that there is a wide constituency watching and paying attention now.

Outside observers may never really know whether these contributions and the efforts made pay off in the end, mental health being a deeply private matter. But doing all we can is the only choice for educators, health professionals, and the community.

As officials in the Town of East Hampton and the owners of private property along the ocean in Montauk puzzle over their relationship with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the fate of a proposed beach protection project there, it is well worth reflecting on two unfortunate chapters in that federal agency’s relatively recent history.

As recounted in a recent edition of Smithsonian magazine, the story involves a 9,000-year-old human skeleton found in a Washington State riverbed and an expensive, nine-year legal battle that the corps ultimately lost. Shortly after the so-called Kennewick Man was found, the Army Corps stepped in and claimed his remains based on its interpretation of a law concerning Native American graves. This put an immediate halt to any hope of scientific study.

Skeletons of this age are rare, and the Kennewick Man’s bones held a tantalizing promise of providing new details about the peopling of North America. It was only after a group of physical anthropologists and archaeologists sued, with lawyers working at no cost, that any access was allowed.

While the suit worked its way through the system, Kennewick Man’s bones lay in insecure and substandard conditions. Meanwhile, just as Congress was about to order the preservation of his burial site, the Army Corps dumped about a million pounds of rock fill there for erosion control, dashing all hopes of research.

About 10 years ago, a federal court ruled that the corps had acted in bad faith. It ordered that the remains be made available to the scientists for a limited period and awarded them and their lawyers more than $2.3 million in legal fees.

Over a 16-day period in 2005 and ’06, researchers studied the remains. They learned, among many other things, that he was likely to have been a seal hunter from a population of seafarers whose contemporary relatives can be found in remote parts of Japan and among the Moriori of the distant South Pacific. Today’s Native Americans, including a tribe that claimed him, are descended from migrants who came later, scientists say. A book describing the scientists’ observations has just been published.

Since the brief study period, the corps has denied further requests for access and refused to allow scientists to take small D.N.A. samples, which could provide clues about where Kennewick Man had lived as a child.

Why the corps fought so fiercely to keep scientists away from the remains and why it continues to make things difficult is not clear. However, observers have speculated that the corps has been in ongoing negotiations with Native American nations in the West, and may be loath to anger their leadership over the Kennewick remains.

One thing is clear though: In this instance and for nine years, the agency took a position that was wholly in opposition to science — something that does not bode well for Montauk or the now-50-year-old Fire Island to Montauk Point study that was at one time supposed to present a future vision for Long Island’s south shore.

Some 2,000 miles away from Washington State and 10 years later, the Army Corps’s poor engineering decisions, in the view of another federal judge, were responsible for some of the levee and flood-wall failures that flooded parts of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. In his decision, District Judge Stanwood Duval wrote, “I feel obligated to note that the bureaucratic behemoth that is the Army Corps of Engineers is virtually unaccountable to the citizens it protects. . . .”

Central to any critique of the Army Corps as it relates to the Long Island ocean shoreline is an observation that its approach, admittedly as mandated by Congress, is doomed over the long term. A new exhaustive analysis by the National Research Council found that the “vast majority of the funding for coastal risk-related issues is provided only after a disaster occurs, through emergency supplemental appropriations.” The most cost-sensitive and effective strategies to reduce the consequence of coastal storms, the study’s authors wrote, are given the least attention. These include more aggressive zoning, land buyouts, and paying to elevate buildings. Some baby steps have been taken in East Hampton and around New York City in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, but they are hardly enough.

One can find an example right here, where the approach is to pile sand in front of a row of threatened Montauk motels now, then worry about coming up with the money later on. And, near Louse Point in Springs, the town zoning board is to decide soon on a request from several property owners for a stone seawall that might well mean the end of an easily walked beach as sea level rises; the town trustees have already rejected the project. Better choices in both instances could well be found, though one will have to look beyond the Army Corps and the old way of thinking it represents to find the way.

Voters will decide on Tuesday whether Suffolk will continue to have both a county treasurer and a county comptroller. Both are elected positions. This should settle a lengthy dispute between Angie Carpenter, the longtime treasurer, and County Executive Steve Bellone. Mr. Bellone has sought to eliminate the treasurer’s post to streamline government and reduce the cost to taxpayers by as much as $800,000 a year in departmental salaries and related expenses. If approved, the comptroller would assume the duties of the treasurer, which for the most part are paying the bills. It’s a good idea.

Ms. Carpenter’s time in office ends on Dec. 31, 2017, because of term limits. If the proposal were approved, the post would be eliminated at that point. She has said a treasurer is important to provide checks and balances. However, the County Legislature could follow the lead of most other New York counties and appoint less highly salaried personnel to serve that role, while the comptroller provides oversight.

At a time when Suffolk faces continual struggles on spending and residents bemoan high taxes, every dollar that can be saved matters. Vote yes.

Suffolk voters will be asked on Tuesday to consider a law intended to tighten financial aspects of the county’s Drinking Water Protection Program, which is funded by a quarter-percent sales tax. It should be approved.

Suffolk officials have taken money out of the water protection fund several times since it was created in 1987, mostly to balance the county budget and avoid the political damage associated with raising taxes or cutting services. The proposal, “A Charter Law Amending the 1/4 Percent Drinking Water Program . . . ,” would put an end to such diversions. It would also force the county to repay the money the Legislature improperly took from the fund in earlier years and, at the same time, create a $29.4 million open-space and water-quality reserve to be spent by 2020.

East Hampton residents should take note of two things. The measure could result in county protection program money becoming available for sewage treatment improvements and new, environmentally friendly nitrogen-removal septic systems, necessary projects that are called for in a recent wastewater study commissioned by the town. This ballot measure, if approved, could help avoid a dangerous precedent that would almost certainly undermine the effectiveness of land preservation here and keep open the likelihood of additional raids.

A community like East Hampton’s that saw the administration of former Town Supervisor Bill McGintee brought down over the misuse of a dedicated fund, should be especially eager to keep politicians’ sticky fingers off a key environmental program’s budget. Vote yes.

It has been a shared belief for some time that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s ambition and assumed presidential aspirations have gotten in the way of what at one time had the promise of a real revolution in the state capital. Now, after a devastating New York Times story about his meddling with a much-heralded anti-corruption initiative, suspicions about Mr. Cuomo are fast turning to deep disappointment.

“Clean up Albany,” Mr. Cuomo said more than once when he was the state attorney general running for New York’s top job. Now it seems that role will have to fall to someone else.

Mr. Cuomo created the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption to great fanfare and promises of impartiality. It was supposed to get at the roots of Albany’s backroom deals and make for honest and open state government. But when its investigations moved too close to Mr. Cuomo’s financial backers, however, his aides moved in to put on the brakes. Mr. Cuomo next simply shut down the commission in a quiet budget change after it had been in existence for only about nine months.

Speaking this week in an upstate appearance, Mr. Cuomo defended his actions and those of his subordinates. This came at about the same time as one of the Moreland Commission’s three co-chairmen did a public about-face, refuting earlier statements he had made in emails obtained by The New York Times in which he complained about meddling from above.

Mr. Cuomo appears in a panic about the unfolding scandal, contradicting his own earlier promises about the commission’s independence and praising its staff, whom he had not so long ago derided as acting “with no logic or basis.” A year ago,  Mr. Cuomo said, “It’s an independent commission that will investigate whatever they believe needs to be investigated.” Now, he says that since he created the panel, it could not, by definition, investigate him or outside parties to whom he was close. Mr. Cuomo’s revisionist defense is not credible.

Since the time Mr. Cuomo disbanded the commission last year, Preet Bharara, the United States district attorney for the Southern District of New York, has shown major interest, seeking records and looking at the governor’s role. Federal attention may be the only way to finally bring some order to Albany and complete the work that Mr. Cuomo or his subordinates wanted so badly to shut down when it got too near.

In and of itself, a massive members-only club proposed for the former East Deck Motel site at Ditch Plain does not represent the end of Montauk as we know and love it, but it comes close.

Here is what is understood so far: An anonymous new owner has come up with a plan to more than double the use of the property by building a two-story complex with an Olympic-size swimming pool, a restaurant, and below-grade parking. The club would be open to some 179 members, along with their families and guests, based apparently on the space available on the beach in front of the parcel.

Built to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency standards, with a ground floor about 15 feet above sea level, the proposed 12,000-square-foot main building would tower over the area, cutting off views from nearby houses, and greatly change the look and feel of the area — for the worse. It could be that a grandiose plan for the new club was presented as an initial ante to be bargained down to what the owner really wants. But even at half the size, it would represent an unwise doubling of the former motel. And remember, this comes in part from the legal team responsible for the Montauk Beach House, another intrusion on parking, public property, and the community.

Viewed another way, the project amounts to a proposal to privatize a longstanding, popular public beach. If the plan eventually is approved, the club’s members, by force of numbers alone, would take over the sand between the so-called East Deck parking area and the legendary Dirt Lot. Though passage would not technically be blocked, amenities, like daybeds and beach lounge chairs, might well make it clear that ordinary folks are not welcome. Surfers at Ditch, already often frustrated by the crowded lineup, might well have to swallow a new and more self-entitled breed less willing to share the waves because they’ve paid for the privilege. And East Hampton officials will also have to consider what additional burden the additional club crowd might put on the town lifeguards just to the west.

The plan was the talk of Saturday’s Montauk Playhouse fund-raiser, where Alice Houseknecht, a former East Deck owner, was among the honorees. It appears that Ms. Houseknecht was hornswoggled by the mystery owner or his or her representatives when she sold the property. She reported last fall that she had been assured there would be no second story on the new structure and that the integrity of the site would be maintained. Based on the paperwork submitted to town planners so far, this is not true, which suggests that the people behind the scheme cannot be taken at their word. Town officials must proceed with the greatest suspicion in reviewing their project.

Our doubts also have been raised by the faceless owner’s successfully getting the town to accept a questionable gift of an expensive dune restoration project that looked then, as it does even more now, like a pot-sweetener for requests that were to come. We wonder just how ethical, or even legal, it was for a municipality to accept a donation from a party with an active plan working its way through its regulatory offices or about to be. Whether or not the gift was intended to curry favor (which it almost certainy was), it was unwise of officials to accept it.

Unfortunately, the project makes it clear that the site’s zoning, and that of other attractive parcels, especially around Montauk, is too permissive. In the 2005 East Hampton Town Comprehensive Plan, no changes were recommended for the resort zoning at Ditch Plain, including the Montauk Shores Condominium trailer park. This means that well-funded investors could further try to maximize their returns in spite of a widely held view that Montauk is already at its saturation point in terms of resorts and visitors.

What happens at East Deck aside, as pressures continue for more, bigger, and fancier projects, officials need to take a hard look at whether existing rules are adequate to assure that the town’s shoreline remains one residents can be proud of. Concepts like the Ditch Plain club, which only add to congestion and environmental impacts and at the same time use public resources as if they were their own, have little place here.

Things are bad in the air around East Hampton Airport. Even though just how bad may be open to debate, there is no question that residents across the North and South Forks have been suffering from aircraft noise. The good news is that relief may be on the horizon.

According to the latest numbers, flights in and out of the town-owned airfield have increased substantially over last year. Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 4 helicopter traffic jumped by almost 44 percent over the same period in 2013. Fixed-wing aircraft using the airport rose as well. The surprising 2014 numbers come as officials are already grappling with accumulated complaints about noise from earlier years and a previous town administration that spent four years basically giving helicopter operators a free pass. Better weather this summer may have played a part in the dramatic spike, but people were also complaining last year, which underscores the fact that noise is a longstanding problem and cannot be ignored.

Unless East Hampton Town acts, route changes mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration could be approaching that would only anger a different set of residents. At a meeting last week in Southold with that town’s supervisor, F.A.A. staff, Representative Tim Bishop, and aides to Senator Charles E. Schumer, the discussion was about shifting flight paths away from the North Fork. But the numbers show that moving traffic around is not going to make a meaningful difference on the ground here. Whether the F.A.A. agrees to direct the loudest aircraft over Northwest Woods, Georgica Pond, Noyac, or the North Fork, some people are going to suffer unfairly for the convenience of a tiny portion of summer visitors and part-time residents.

Paid spokesmen for the helicopter industry have predicted dire consequences if airport limits are put in place. These claims, even if credible, do not outweigh the expectation of peace and quiet by residents of both forks. Officials from all of the affected towns and villages should work with the F.A.A. on an aggressive plan to reduce the total number of flights and curtail the hours helicopters can use the airport. The rights of those who live here must take precedence over commercial interests and the desire of some of the well-off to avoid the maddenly slow Long Island Expressway. You know what? If a certain number of weekend hedge-funders and others decide to spend their vacation time elsewhere, we’ll manage just fine without them.

Unfortunately, as the debate over airport traffic raged, conditions there deteriorated, particularly putting private pilots at risk. East Hampton Town officials are moving quickly now on several safety upgrades. These include lighting, tree work, and reconstruction of a crumbling and dangerous secondary runway. All of this can be paid for without F.A.A. money by using income from landing fees and other airport revenue. This is important because federal dollars come with attached strings, which make local regulation of noisy aircraft more difficult.

East Hampton Town Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez has taken on a monumental task in getting many of the airport’s constituencies to talk to one another. She is to be congratulated for helping to guide the town toward likely new rules on noise and much-needed repairs.

The emerging united front among local pilots and anti-noise advocates must include the F.A.A. as well, since its cooperation will be essential if the town, as expected, imposes helicopter curfews, so-called slot limits on the number of landings and takeoffs, or other measures.

On paper, East Hampton Village’s proposed code changes to allow some duneland projects to proceed with reduced official scrutiny may make sense; on the ground, however, one of the proposals — to allow property owners to place “beach-compatible” sand on the dunes without applying for a variance from the code — is regrettable. Hearings on these and several other changes are scheduled for tomorrow’s village board meeting.

Our objection to exempting oceanfront property owners from prohibitions that now cover work on the dunes comes down to the simple fact that there is not enough sand to be found of sufficiently high quality. One thing is clear: The junk that passes for beach-compatible sand is garbage, pure and simple.

Take Georgica Beach in East Hampton Village, for example. Stone-flecked yellow sand from who knows where was dumped there to protect the exposed foundation of a guest house. To the east, a lot of the material brought in to protect threatened Montauk resorts has left the beach altered. In several places on the bay beach as well, we picked up bits of asphalt roadway and even what appeared to be a chunk of a green-painted concrete tennis court. The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation later told us the detritus came from an A-okay project.

With the standard for what passes as beach sand these days so low, village officials should not ease the way for property owners to fast-track coastal work. In the worst-case scenario, you could expect high “privacy dunes” to arise in these extraordinarily fragile micro­environments. It doesn’t seem as if the village trustees actually thought this through.

Another duneland regulation the board has proposed is reasonable, however. Property owners would be able to seek permits for elevated walkways with reduced paperwork and a minimum of delay. We support this change. On the matter of dune-building, however, the board should take a long, hard look before acting. Exempting property owners from thorough review would be likely to damage natural habitats and diminish the quality of one of East Hampton Village’s most precious assets — its beaches. At a time when projects near the beach should be getting more scrutiny, not less, the proposal is moving village government in the wrong direction.

Everybody eats; not everybody plays golf. And there, in a nutshell, you have why a private club’s offer to take over most of a large parcel of town-owned former farmland in Amagansett should be rejected out of hand.

Some weeks ago, after successfully negotiating a community preservation fund purchase of a multi-parcel site for which luxury housing for the over-50 crowd had been planned, the East Hampton Town Board called for proposals about how the property might be used. Among the responses was a thick document from the South Fork Country Club offering to set up a driving range and instruction tees and greens there. A fine horse barn there would be used for club equipment and about a third of the land would be returned to farming. While the new site would serve the club’s members, the proposal notes that the public would be able to use the facility, presumably for a fee. The club said it would pay the town $75,000 a year for the land’s use and return it in better shape than when it was purchased.

Even though the preservation fund law allows municipalities to buy land for recreation, and golf is indeed a form of recreation, the South Fork’s proposal should be rejected. Perhaps 1 in 10 people in the United States occasionally golf, but only a fraction of that number do so more than a few times a year. According to a recent report from the National Golf Foundation, the sport suffered a net loss of 400,000 players last year. Looking toward the future, golf’s biggest defections were seen among those under 35. This is hardly the kind of trend the East Hampton Town Board should consider hitching itself to — especially on such a visible and, at $10.1 million, expensive recent land buy.

As we understand it, there are several other proposals making the rounds, and apparently most of them involve better agricultural purposes. Several East Hampton Town Board members have expressed a preference for farming or related uses there, and we agree. Food production is preferable, as it would revitalize the site, preserving community access and providing educational opportunities for a much larger proportion of local residents than golf ever could. You can’t fault the South Fork Country Club, which has an 18-hole course and clubhouse nearby, for asking. Nevertheless, its option should be placed on the bottom of the pile.

Credit must be given for a new East Hampton Town Board initiative to deal with persistent quality-of-life violations and business owners who act as if laws do not apply to them. It is about time and should send a message that the rules matter and will be enforced.

Acting on complaints made by neighbors, officials have cited two Montauk property owners for allegedly turning their houses into hot-mattress hotels with a different set of guests every weekend. As difficult as these cases may be to prosecute, enforcement of existing law is not optional.

Notable, too, has been the effort to restrain the daytime bar crowd at Cyril’s Fish House on Napeague that spills onto the Montauk Highway right-of-way and snarls traffic. Acting on information provided by East Hampton Town, the New York State Liquor Authority voted last week to cancel Cyril’s license to sell alcohol. The move may have alarmed some in the bar and restaurant sector here, but was long overdue.

Farther to the east, the town has decided to get tough about the Memory Motel, which cordoned off most of its parking lot as an outdoor bar. The town’s response to this blatant affront to its zoning code has the parties headed to court to fight it out.

Looking to the upcoming town budget season, it is clear that more money must be provided for code enforcement and legal confrontations. Making sure the laws already on the books are efficiently applied has to be a central goal as the town looks ahead to next year.