One of the people who have been thinking a lot about a proposed surf club on the old East Deck Motel site at Ditch Plain in Montauk stopped in at The Star office the other day to point something out. Mike Bottini, an outdoorsman and member of the Surfrider Foundation’s local chapter, laid out a set of papers on our front desk, showing that a string of public and largely protected lands extend from Montauk Point nearly to the hamlet’s commercial downtown. East Hampton Town officials are believed to be in talks with ED40, the new corporate owners of the East Deck, about using the community preservation fund to buy the site. As Mike said, adding the property to the string of public and largely untouched lands would help complete a wonderful picture.

With the rebirth of longboarding and the rise of Montauk’s surfing lifestyle, Ditch Plain with its dependable and mostly forgiving break became what you might say is the center of the universe for many visitors, part-timers, and year-round residents. If the waves are only occasionally world-class, no matter; you can surf there almost every day of the year with the right equipment, and, in summer, some of the sport’s greatest stylists, including Joel Tudor, Robert August, and Wingnut Weaver, have been known to put their toes over the nose there.

ED40 never threatened the wave itself, but that hardly mattered. Its plan for a two-story private club with restaurant, pool, and other amenities would have not only altered the look of Ditch Plain but, what is more important to devotees, the feel of the place. For those lucky enough to own houses or rent in the neighborhood, the personal and commercial traffic the club would generate would become a source of continual annoyance. East Hampton Town’s buying the former motel and either keeping it as is or restoring parts of the beachfront to a natural state would eliminate the threat. While this alone might be enough to argue in favor of a deal, there are additional considerations.

Over the last decade or so, town officials have puzzled over how to provide more bathing beach capacity. Using some of the East Deck site for parking could help ease pressure elsewhere and better accommodate the numbers of beachgoers’ vehicles that already try to shoe-horn into Ditch Plain’s three inadequate lots. The site could provide a staging area for town lifeguards and improved access for emergency vehicles. Also, the single public restroom at Ditch is in desperate need of an upgrade; a second, more modern facility with a more environmentally appropriate septic system is in order.

Taking an idea from the Village of East Hampton, which very lucratively rents out the Sea Spray summer cottages near Main Beach, we can envision a setup at Ditch Plain in which the town actually gains revenue by retaining or renovating some of the motel for guests or coming up with a new arrangement.

The downside as we see it is cost. ED40 paid $15 million for the property last year; the price cannot have fallen since then, and the owners will undoubtedly want to be repaid for the dune-building they did there and on adjacent town land. The town cannot pay more than its appraisers say the property is worth, and a large deal might knock out a good chunk of the community preservation fund’s cash on hand. However, the town has the ability to borrow against future transfer-tax receipts for the fund, so the money is available one way or the other.

Setting aside highly politicized recriminations about the Keyes Island purchase in Three Mile Harbor, hardly an ill word has ever been said about preservation fund acquisitions. And, going further back in time, land buys have always been viewed favorably. Purported damage to a municipal property at Sammy’s Beach in East Hampton may have cost one town supervisor a shot a re-election, and an attempt to sell off a town property in Montauk badly sullied the reputation of another.

It has been understood for a long time here that preservation is the best investment. The huge outcry over the ED40 plan is an indication of how deep and heartfelt affection for Ditch Plain has become. It is difficult to come up with a significant downside to public purchase. Officials should proceed with talks knowing that they are on the right track and will enjoy wide community support.

Saturday is International Coastal Cleanup Day, and East Hampton Town is joining the effort by providing trash bags, gloves, and collection sites for volunteers who want to help pick up trash from the beaches. Then, on Sunday, the organizers of the People’s Climate March expect it to be the largest demonstration in New York City since the anti-Vietnam War protests. Both are worthy.

The People’s Climate March promises to involve leaders from the labor movement, faith-based organizations, and people from across the nation, along with 32 marching bands and a single call by trumpets, bells, drums, and whistles for change. The beach cleanup here, sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy, may present an opportunity for change of the sometimes overlooked but growing problem of the mess left behind by bonfires. East Hampton Village allows fires on the beach provided they are kept inside a metal brazier or other container. Southampton does the same, and requires a permit. Many other Long Island municipalities ban them altogether. East Hampton Town, on the other hand, allows fires to be built right on the sand, subject to a host of regulations about size, location, and hours, which are largely ignored and in any event fail to address the enduring problem that fire debris, be it half-burned logs or the more-difficult-to-remove bits of charcoal, are leaving many popular bathing beaches almost permanently scarred.

 If you look closely (and we invite you to), dozens of small, black chunks can be picked up within an area no bigger than a single beach towel at Indian Wells in Amagansett. Downtown Montauk’s shore one morning this summer was a wasteland of smoldering wood and empty beer cans. It’s time for town officials to realize something has to change. Fires on town beaches could be permitted only within metal containers for a distance of perhaps 300 feet in either direction from beach road ends. Fires could be allowed on the sand beyond those limits, but only if a way can be found for marine patrol officers to obtain identification of responsible parties to whom littering tickets could be directed if a mess were found in the morning.

It is high time that beachgoers here began to practice the old backpacker’s mantra of “leave no trace.” As for time, it is running short to protect those very beaches from eventually falling victim to climate change. 

Responding to several years of complaints about spring break-style crowds at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett, the East Hampton Town Board has floated a prohibition on alcohol use there and at Atlantic Avenue during the hours that lifeguards are present. This is a reasonable response to the informal, if densely packed, gatherings that have left some longtime beachgoers disgusted and no longer comfortable at Indian Wells.

The East Hampton Town Trustees, who share regulatory power over most town beaches, have opposed the restriction strenuously, offering an alternative that would, apparently by design, be the equivalent of no ban at all. Some of the trustees, as well as others, are expected to speak at a hearing on the concept tonight at Town Hall. It will be interesting to hear what all sides have to say.

The width of the no-alcohol zone that the East Hampton Town Board has proposed, 1,500 feet in both directions from the road ends, is considerable. This is roughly the distance from Hook Mill to the Chase Bank in East Hampton Village, or, in Amagansett, from the Catholic church to the firehouse. Applied at Atlantic Avenue and Indian Wells, the spans would effectively leave only a remote strip between the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge and Atlantic Double Dunes Preserve open to daytime drinking.

Five hundred feet, as the trustees proposed only for Indian Wells, would not deter the weekend party crowd, many of whom already walk to the beach from downtown Amagansett or their share houses along the lanes, 24-packs of beer on their shoulders. And, keeping things the way they are at Atlantic Avenue with no restrictions would be likely to move the party there. One aspect of the trustees’ position is worthwhile: imposing the ban only on weekends and federal holidays. If practical, this would both ease enforcement demands and allow beachgoers to have a daytime drink of beer, wine, or hard liquor on relatively quiet weekdays.

Throughout all this, Montauk has been absent from the discussion. East Hampton Village and Southampton Town and Village prohibit drinking at beaches, so if and when the party is shut down in Amagansett, the already put-upon easternmost community would be likely to absorb the flow. Downtown Montauk’s beachfront is easy walking distance from free public parking, making it an obvious second choice for weekend throngs, as if it were not packed enough already. It would make sense to test a daytime alcohol ban there. On the other hand, Ditch Plain and Gin Beach are remote enough and parking is so limited that it might be sensible to allow the current policy to continue for the time being.

It must be said that it is not at all clear just exactly whom the trustees believe they are representing in opposing alcohol restrictions. They should need no reminding that they were elected to make policy based on the interests and desires of the community as a whole, not solely to advance their interpretation of a somewhat ephemeral sense of tradition. Whether the trustees like it or not, times have changed, and the management of public resources, including the beaches, must be continually and dispassionately rethought as demands increase.

In a landmark decision, the United States National Marine Fisheries Service has listed the scalloped hammerhead shark as an endangered species, making it the first shark protected under the Endangered Species Act. This is only one of the top ocean predators left vulnerable because of fishing and other human activities. Many additional species of shark are considered at risk of extinction, thanks largely to a continuing demand for their fins for soup.

In the waters off eastern Long Island, there is little commercial fishing specifically for sharks. Instead, they are harried by sportfishermen, often during tournaments in which money and bragging rights are at stake. It is surprising that there is just one catch-and-release tournament here, the $10,000 Shark’s Eye competition, which debuted last summer at the Montauk Marine Basin and will be held again this weekend.

By all accounts, the tournament was a success. Sharks were caught, tagged with tracking devices, and then released. No weigh-in system was used; instead, each shark caught was photographed and allotted a set amount of points based on its species. To make sure all competitors played fair, a member from a rival team was on board at all times.

Last year’s winner, Richie Nessel, said the Shark’s Eye was the “most fun” he had ever had in a tournament. It provided education and entertainment for students at the Montauk School as well, who named a 200-pound blue shark Beamer. His movements were tracked at Ocearch.org, so it is known that he traveled over 9,000 miles since the tournament last July. As of this week, his satellite tag was somewhere off Costa Rica.

The Shark’s Eye tournament and others like it also provide valuable scientific data. Tracking systems allow scientists to gather information about sharks’ health as well as travels. Furthermore, they promote public interest in sharks. If people become interested enough in a shark like Beamer to track his progress, perhaps they will care enough to avoid turning him into soup. Six other sharks are expected to be tagged during this weekend’s tournament.

Conservationists would welcome the expansion of catch-and-release tournaments, and we believe more of them would not reduce enthusiasm. The model exists, it isn’t difficult to copy, and it has proven successful. Montauk is known worldwide as a fishing community and has the ability to influence the fishing world. There is no better place for ocean conservation to take hold. Better, more progressive tournaments could help make that happen.

Pity poor Montauk. First it comes under attack from hordes of people partying on weekends, then it becomes overrun with guests in illegal short-term rentals, and now, parts of the public’s property are being usurped by private businesses.

East Hampton Town officials will be certainly met with howls of outrage when, as we suspect, they take on restaurant owners and others who have in rapidly increasing numbers this summer been placing tables out on the sidewalk for their patrons. Any number of downtown eateries are getting in on the act, expanding their seating capacity to make the most of a short season. One can understand why they  do so, but that does not make it right or fair to the taxpayers whose property they are using. Perhaps these businesses are taking a cue from Gurney’s Inn, also in Montauk, which has set out dozens of chairs and daybeds apparently in the traditional right of way over the beach. If those charged with regulating public properties here see no harm in these instances, they should at least charge fees for the privilege.

Then there are places, like the Memory Motel, which has in effect stolen public property by turning most of its off-street parking lot into an outdoor bar. As a result, more patrons of the popular drinking spot have to put their vehicles elsewhere, and this is hardly the worst of it. By all accounts, chaos rules there late at night as far too many revelers roll off into the darkness. This is similar to what happened at the Montauk Beach House, which added a club and live music venue without providing a single additional off-street parking space.

Now, though apparently within legal bounds, the mysterious owners of the former East Deck Motel have presented the town with plans to expand and become a members-only beach club at Ditch Plain. This, too, will have an impact on the surrounding area and undoubtedly add to the sense of a hamlet out of control, in which the love of money takes precedence.

A lot has been heard at East Hampton Town Hall meetings lately about adding to local laws to meet a new, more complicated reality, but not enough attention has been given to the lapses among those who are supposed to see that existing rules are enforced. That appears to be changing. In a hearing this evening, the town board will take public opinion on expanding the roster of those who can, in some cases, issue summonses for violations and stop-work orders.

The problem has been that the Ordinance Enforcement Department, whose chief, Betsy Bambrick, doubles as the town’s lead animal control officer, has proven not to be up to the task or perhaps is just unwilling to do the job for some reason. Under her lax leadership, obvious violations, including some that are simple to deal with, have not been corrected. A shared sense is that, dating back some years, she and her subordinates have responded only to complaints from the public; they do not look for potential violations and, what’s worse, they flat-out ignore even those in front of their noses. Some of this may be the result of do-nothing pressure during the Wilkinson-Quigley years, but, to be fair, complaints about enforcement go back at least to the 1990s.

This is not to say that the town code is adequate in all respects. Many of its key quality-of-life provisions are outdated or contradictory or both. Consider one example in the news this week, that of short-term rentals, on which the law is entirely inadequate. On the one hand, East Hampton property owners are forbidden from renting out their houses for fewer than 14 days more than twice in any six-month period. On the other hand, it is perfectly okay with officials for the house right next door to yours to be turned into a de facto bed-and-breakfast, accommodating scores of guests a year so long as it has no more than two guest rooms. None of it makes any sense. And forget about the proliferation of illegal group rentals; the law — and enforcement — has proven nearly hopeless in this regard.

We expect the main outcome of this evening’s hearing will be that the director of public safety, David Betts, is added to those able to issue tickets for alleged violators to appear in court. Mr. Betts came to the post by way of Southampton, where, as the chief investigator in its code enforcement division, he earned a reputation for action. To cite one instance, he aggressively went after a party-house promoter in Southampton while at the same time his East Hampton colleagues failed to prosecute the same person for essentially the same offense in their jurisdiction and instead issued a citation to one of his victims.

Giving Mr. Betts and his eventual successors in East Hampton Town the tools to do the job will go a long way toward signaling that the town means business on local laws. Adding him to the list of enforcers should also send a signal to those who have been letting violators go unpunished that they should step it up or start polishing their résumés.

Pressure is mounting for meetings of the East Hampton Town Trustees to be aired on LTV, the town’s public access cable channel. This is a reasonable suggestion and should be explored.

The trustees are the only one of East Hampton’s important boards whose meetings are not televised and available for replay on demand on the LTV website. Town board meetings are shown live and archived online, as are other proceedings, including those of the planning, zoning, and architectural review boards. The sessions of the East Hampton Village Board and Z.B.A. are live as well and available for replay, as are those of the East Hampton School Board. But not the trustees, who gather twice a month. This should change.

To be fair, interest in watching trustees’ sessions started to rise only during a recent debate over a town board attempt to ban alcohol at Amagansett’s Indian Wells and Atlantic Avenue Beaches. Some residents who favored the ban were annoyed at the trustees’ opposition and seemed to think more people would share their outrage if they could see the panel’s future deliberations for themselves. But other trustee matters also merit broader public attention. The trustees have an important function in local government and greater public knowledge of their affairs would help dispel the sense that they operate in a vacuum.

Technical issues and cost might stand in the way of the immediate airing of trustee meetings, but this should not be the end of the matter. The Lamb Building, where the trustees gather, is not yet wired for videotaping, unlike other official town and village venues. The trustees could consider meeting in Town Hall, but the zoning board is already there at the same time on Tuesdays. As an interim measure, it might suffice if LTV could assign a single camera operator to tape trustee sessions. That way, even if live broadcasts were not immediately possible, the online version could be made available.

Seeing trustee meetings will go only part of the way toward getting them more in step with the town’s other agencies. Unfortunately, the trustees are elected in one massive, difficult-to-comprehend slate. Unlike all the other boards, which have staggered terms, all nine trustee seats come up simultaneously. Take it from us: It is extremely difficult to interview and assess the qualities of 18 trustee candidates from the two major political parties, and we are paid to do it. Because it is almost impossible for ordinary voters to make reasoned decisions among so many people, the contest becomes one of name recognition.

The trustees are also at a disadvantage because, unlike the boards that meet in Town Hall, they have a tiny staff and few resources to call on. Had the trustees been in the flow of government and the public eye, some of the tension that greeted the alcohol ban discussion might have been avoided. Promoting greater awareness among residents of the valuable work the trustees do, and how they do it, is a fine place to start.

For residents concerned about the speed and ability of emergency medical care, the news that the East End Ambulance Coalition has proposed a significant improvement should be welcome. Some resistance has emerged, however, to its idea for a regional first-responder program, something that appears necessary and overdue.

The program would provide coverage in the four East Hampton fire districts as well as Bridgehampton’s and Sag Harbor’s. For many years the ambulance squads in these districts were all volunteer and a system of mutual aid among them was able to meet demands. This area’s aging, growing, and demographically changing population, coupled with ever-greater numbers of seasonal visitors, have strained these ambulance companies. They have struggled with training and recruitment and some have brought on paid paramedics.

As good as these always-ready paid personnel may be, new concerns are becoming apparent. As things stand, the paramedics are forbidden to cross district lines for any but the most serious and likely fatal calls. This jeopardizes the entire mutual aid system in two ways. First, some volunteer companies do not have advanced life support-qualified, or A.L.S., members. If an A.L.S. volunteer in a neighboring district is already at an emergency and cannot respond to a call for aid, there may be no one with adequate skills available — even though a paramedic might be sitting idle in another district. Second, maintaining A.L.S. readiness takes scores of hours of training and near-constant recertification; unfortunately, the presence of a single paid paramedic might be a subtle disincentive for those who would otherwise step up to serve or are conflicted about the commitment because of family or professional demands, or both. The proposed regional responder program could fill the gaps in coverage and get assistance to patients more rapidly. 

A new tax district, encompassing areas from Bridgehampton to Montauk, would be created to pay for  the program. The coalition has estimated that an initial annual budget of about $2.5 million would be enough to provide a 24-hour team of first responders able to go to any call that arises. Volunteers would continue to be essential, handling emergencies, driving ambulances, and doing other tasks.

Some jurisdictions, the Springs Fire Department, for example, and East Hampton Village, which controls its fire and ambulance services, appear cool to the idea. These positions are indefensible considering that in more than a few instances patients have waited far too long for qualified medical help to arrive.

Like the East Hampton  Town and Village Police Departments, which provide professional service and do not hesitate to cross district lines when the need arises, the time appears to have come to give serious consideration to a regional first-responder system. In fact, police are often first on the scene at ambulance calls and have privately expressed frustration at the delays. If the districts continue to balk, officials in East Hampton and Southampton Towns need to step in and use whatever leverage they can to seek this much-needed modernization, even creating fire-responder services in their Police Departments if that is what it takes.

Community comes first, as one of the backers of the regional plan recently said. Providing the best and fastest care possible should be the top priority.

It is astonishing, particularly for those like Josephine DiSunno who were around when the Amagansett Fire Department was simply middle-aged, that it has now passed the century mark. Mrs. DiSunno, who was a charter member of the department’s ladies auxiliary, was among the many who took part in a celebratory parade on Saturday, which included delegations from departments from as far afield as Eastport and Ronkonkoma.

We have often marveled at how Amagansett serves such a demanding area. There are miles of beaches to which its ambulance company is frequently summoned, often to deal with emergencies among some of the hundreds of weekend guests at the Napeague motels and condominiums. It has responsibility for the dangerous Napeague stretch of roadway. Then there are the houses and businesses extending from Further Lane almost to Hither Hills, over Town Lane and out toward Barnes Landing. It is fitting that Montauk Highway was shut to traffic through the hamlet at the peak of the season for Saturday’s parade, an unintended but vital reminder to the summer crowds that this dedicated corps of volunteers is always on call.

Saturday’s party was a real small-town American salute at its finest, made all the more surprising coming in the middle of summer, when so many people who live and work and volunteer here are at their busiest. It was a reminder of what is important and what is special about living here or in any small town: a sense of place, knowing your neighbors, and counting on the fact that even people you don’t know have your back when you need it.

Here’s to another 100 years, Amagansett Fire Department!

It is difficult to imagine a more convincing argument for the immediate consolidation of school districts than the president of the Wainscott School Board’s plea that a modest affordable housing development be kept out of that school district. That this was not roundly rejected from the start is disappointing, to say the least.

David Eagan, the board president, cautioned East Hampton Town officials last week that it would be difficult to accommodate the perhaps 40 additional students the housing would bring in and that it could lead to higher taxes and the need to expand the tiny lower-grades schoolhouse. Take it elsewhere, he seemed to say, like Springs or East Hampton. And therein should lay the death knell of the anachronistic smaller South Fork school districts.

The housing plan is worthwhile. A local nonprofit, with county, state, and federal money, would build a 48-apartment complex on about 31 acres of town-owned land off Stephen Hand’s Path. Current residents of East Hampton Town would be eligible for preference as renters. One of the project’s backers estimated that in addition to the 20 students who would be educated at the Wainscott School, the costs for another 20 who would attend middle school and high school elsewhere could well be added to tax bills. Even so, these numbers are small when compared to several neighboring school districts.

If a school system is too microscopic to handle even the children of a modest work force residence project, something is out of balance. What Wainscott’s board members seem to be saying is that they might welcome the labor of those who live in publicly underwritten houses, but that they had better live elsewhere. One might easily expect the same walls to be thrown up in Sagaponack and Amagansett. The latter school district, in what may be an effort to maintain the exclusivity inherent in its tiny size, has a no-visitors policy that crimps district-shopping by prospective parents.

Speculating, we have long been under the impression that much of the resistance to district consolidation comes from the respective small-school administrators, some of whom stand to lose high-paying jobs in the inevitable shakeout. Scare tactics in the form of studies claiming huge tax increases are trotted out as these leaders begin to see a threat to positions with top compensation packages of around $300,000 a year, when benefits are added.

Larger districts might make for positive change on the school boards, which are made up of well-meaning ordinary citizens who find themselves in thrall to superintendents and their intricate knowledge of the complex functions of running an educational system. So complete is the capitulation that in several districts, notably East Hampton’s, the superintendent sits at the head of the table at board meetings, instead of in the audience.

From the parents’ perspective, small schools are a dream come true. Who wouldn’t want a good education in an idyllic setting for their children that is paid for by someone else? But parents’ wishes do not always make for sound policy. By all accounts, East Hampton Town is in an affordable housing crisis; even less-desirable neighborhoods are priced out of reach of working people as gentrification goes on. There are many causes for this, including the impact of more than a decade of nearly complete town failure to enforce group-housing laws, which has lead to an artificial inflation of prices at the low end of the market.

Let’s amplify that point for a moment: Houses in Springs, for example, are priced beyond the means of local middle-class families in part because illegal multiple rentals allow owners to cover mortgages that would otherwise be unaffordable. This is yet another reason why code enforcement matters, but whether at this point there is any way back is an open question. The result is that there really is little hope for someone starting out or getting by on the area’s modest average salaries to find a decent, year-round rental, and almost no way toward homeownership without breaking the law along the way.

Wainscott’s position is understandable, but must not be the end of the discussion. A neutral analysis could resolve the question about higher taxes, but its not-in-my-backyard stance should be ignored. A regional school district that could spread the tax burden around would be the best course. Of course, a change in state law about how schools raise money might help shift some of the cost off the backs of property owners and more equitably onto this area’s considerable summertime sales and hotel tax income. Then, too, townwide property reassessment might reveal large untapped reserves among long-undervalued parcels.

Education, housing, and taxes are massive and interrelated issues. Progress on these fronts is not going to be made by Wainscott’s thumbing its nose at the rest of the community.