As if the proceedings of East Hampton Town’s citizens advisory committees weren’t strange enough much of the time, in recent weeks there has been a fuss over who was to be elected head of the Amagansett committee and, a few days later, a member of one committee asked to be appointed to contemporaneously serve on another one.

The citizens committees are made up of residents selected by the town board as sounding boards for their respective hamlets. They meet monthly, ostensibly to hash out matters of varying importance to neighbors. We can’t help but wonder, though, if these groups of nonelected people truly function as conduits for ordinary residents’ concerns or have become actually dominated by people with personal and/or political agendas.

They were created for a good purpose, of course. In concept, informal conversations among neighbors were to lead to better and more-responsive governance. It just doesn’t seem to have worked out that way. Town board members attend committee meetings and report back on what they hear, but they usually are listening to a self-selected, small subset of any given hamlet’s residents, activists who do not necessarily speak for a majority.

East Hampton Town is not alone; the Bridgehampton citizens group made noises this spring that it might actually sue the Town of Southampton over plans for a CVS pharmacy at a busy Route 27 intersection, obviously a departure from its advisory role. Looking backward, there have been tussles about the use of letterhead to communicate with outside government agencies, improperly going around the town board. In general, the committees seem to be bereft of formal procedure or a clear expression of their missions.

While we are not convinced the time has come to disband the citizens committees, doing so is worth considering. An alternative might be for each hamlet’s designated town board liaison to hold open hours in a library or over coffee in a semipublic place, along perhaps with an associated online chat or email hotline to gauge local concerns. As things have evolved, the give and take during the East Hampton Town Board’s twice-weekly meetings has turned out to be much more of a big-tent forum, where anyone can talk directly to those in authority.

Battles and bickering over who is or is not a leader of one of the citizens committees or over what a committee’s role should be suggest that the current model is not entirely successful. Small changes might do the trick, but it may actually be time to try something altogether new.

Some 120 acres of undeveloped land across multiple parcels in Montauk are coming up for possible purchase by the Town of East Hampton and there are some deals in the pipeline or already inked, using money from the community preservation fund transfer tax. The properties are most, if not all, part of the Lake Montauk watershed, which is the focus of an important environmental-protection effort.

Lake Montauk was permanently opened to the flow of the tides in the 1920s when the Carl Fisher company set about developing it as a key feature of its resort. Two long stone jetties, which reach into Block Island Sound, do their best to keep the lake’s narrow connection to the deep, refreshing waters open. But since the lake is loaded with marinas and commercial enterprises and is ringed with houses, it is little surprise that pollution is a problem. Parts of the lake are closed to swimming and shellfishing on a permanent basis, and seasonal tests have indicated high levels of bacterial contamination in other locations.

Buying and neutralizing as many of the vacant parcels around the lake as possible is just the first part of a long campaign. The authors of a recent report prepared at the behest of the East Hampton Town Board have said that water testing must be increased and the noxious contribution of the many, mostly residential, septic systems quantified. Following that, the town might provide cash incentives, low-cost loans, or tax breaks for sanitary system upgrades.

The health of the lake is not simply an indulgence; environmental quality has long been understood as a key component of East Hampton Town’s attractiveness to second-home owners and short-term visitors, both of whom are economically crucial. And now that at least two companies, a successful oyster-growing concern and another just getting started, are growing food in the lake itself, there is added incentive to get it right.

Helping save the lake through aggressive land purchases is a great start, but, as the report’s authors said, it is only the first salvo in an ongoing campaign.

The East Hampton Village Police Department has dipped a nightstick, so to speak, into social media, joining Twitter a while back and posting alerts about incoming weather and the like. One recent tweet, as the 140-maximum-character messages are known, got our attention. In its entirely, it read: “Traffic Hint: Mid day or afternoon heading toward Main Street? Avoid Newtown Lane = Gridlock.”

Years ago, if we recall, a plan was drawn up that would have closed Newtown Lane to vehicles from about Main Street to the middle school. This was in a more idealistic age, perhaps, one in which it was thought that people might actually get out of their cars and stroll along a verdant median, enjoying an ice cream cone or reading a newspaper from the comfort of a park bench.

These days, you might practically be able to leaf through your paper while sitting behind the wheel as the weekend line of vehicles creeps up Newtown toward the train station, not that this is advised. Avoidance, as the village police’s Twitter voice says, is just about the only strategy left.

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.

It may be a minor matter in the scheme of things, but the continued apparent refusal of the East Hampton Town Ordinance Enforcement Department — and by extension, the town board — to address even simple code violations sends a message, intentionally or not, that as long as what you do is in the interest of making money, the powers-that-be will look the other way.

All in all, at the beginning of the 2014 high season this appears little better than it was in the party-a-go-go Wilkinson years. From the least consequential to the most important, the way regulations are applied was supposed to shift with new leadership in Town Hall. However, if changes are under way, they are coming too slowly. What is puzzling and disappointing is that even the most obvious violations are ignored.

Take the town’s sign law, for example. Illegal, street-side “sandwich boards” have proliferated, as have internally illuminated “open” signs and the like. Even prohibited off-premises commercial come-ons, like one for a business co-owned by a member of the town planning board, are allowed to remain day after day in plain view.

As Julia Prince, a former town councilwoman and, before that, a code enforcement officer, once told us, this kind of violation is the easiest to deal with. Most of the time, business operators are unaware of the rules, and a simple phone call is all it takes to correct the problem. Why this isn’t done is really not known; the answers our reporters have received have been less than illuminating. Maybe it comes down to inadequate staffing on the town’s part — or maybe it is just a lack of will. No one has ever been able to figure it out. On the other hand, if a new consensus is emerging about what should be permitted, regulations should be changed.

On bigger matters, the town’s record of late also has been a disappointment. We wonder how, for example, the Memory Motel in Montauk was able to fence off a portion of its parking lot, add tables, and put in an outdoor bar complete with lights and beer taps. And, elsewhere in Montauk, why does anyone have to put up with thundering live bands or D.J.s at all hours at, among other places,  the Sloppy Tuna, Solé East, and the Montauk Beach House? In whose interests are town officials who allow such things really working? Not residents', by the looks of it.

What about the improper conversion of residences to businesses? And are the mountains of trash at beach garbage cans at the end of the day something we should just accept? Sure, overcrowded houses and excessive rental turnover might be more difficult to handle, but they, too, could be better reined in.

Officials should not need to be reminded that their first duty is to protect the interests of ordinary taxpayers and citizens; everything else should be relegated to the back of the line. Problems with code enforcement are not new, but a little more push on the most visible transgressions would send a long overdue signal that Town Hall is finally getting serious.

As the summer season and all of its frustrations arrive in earnest, it is worth pausing to reflect that much of what residents might find offensive are the consequences of our own, collective decisions.

Behind all the traffic, aircraft noise, crowded beaches, environmental degradation, and even the offensive new PSEG utility poles, lies an inescapable reality: The South Fork in general and East Hampton in particular has grown beyond its infrastructure, government, and natural systems’ ability to cope with human demands.

We are not alone in this observation. Indeed, it is East Hampton’s own fault, representatives of PSEG Long Island have all but said, in defense of the new power lines now marring neighborhoods and destroying trees. Though town officials have sought to hold down the final number of houses that will eventually be built in East Hampton, little has been accomplished to limit their size and the attendant demand for lots and lots of electricity. Giant residences and resorts have hefty power needs, and, in the past, dirty diesel generators were operated to meet the summer demand. Now that these have been decommissioned here, the electricity has to come from somewhere, and, if PSEG is to be believed, that source has to be new lines.

Change, too, of a less obvious sort comes from the area’s various emergency services departments, which have been adding paid paramedics to their rosters to work alongside volunteers in providing care for residents and visitors alike. Within the last handful of seasons has there been a willingness within the departments to recognize that an aging year-round population is unable to keep up with the number of ambulance calls. Now, paid first-responders are available in several districts, and they may be sought in others soon. The cost in dollar terms is modest, but the change is a milestone.

If, as all signs indicate, government is going to continue to allow construction of new and larger houses and expanded businesses, it must look well beyond the projects themselves to the greater regional impact. There are, after all, real consequences for each and every one of us.

That the Bridgehampton School District’s proposed budget for the next academic year was defeated last month even though 54 percent of voters approved piercing the state cap on increases in the tax levy doesn’t tell the whole story — the numbers do. The district supports a relatively small school, with only 166 students enrolled this year, from prekindergarten through high school, and would have a $12.3 million spending plan for next year if approved in Tuesday’s revote. It seems that if the budget is approved, the cost of educating a child at the Bridgehampton School would be the third highest in the state next year, at $74,253, while the average per-pupil cost is $22,552.

Bridgehampton was the only South Fork district besides East Hampton to ask voters for permission to increase the tax levy more than the 1.46 percent allowed by the state. To do so, 60 percent of voters had to approve the increase. East Hampton, which proposed a 2.43-percent increase, won approval by an astounding 73 percent. Bridgehampton sought an 8.8-percent increase and didn’t make it. Two hundred forty-seven people cast ballots in Bridgehampton, and the defeat was by a margin of 21 votes. The school board is asking voters to reverse the defeat. We hope they do so, but the community’s generosity should be seen as a one-time thing by the board and administrators.

Something must be done to lower costs beyond 2014-15, but a second defeat would hurt students without even beginning to address the reasons why expenses are so high. If the budget fails this time, some $800,000 in cuts would be required, with vital and extracurricular programs eliminated while not making much of a dent in Bridgehampton’s bottom line.

Shared programs and services with other schools, while perhaps helpful, will not reduce spending enough, leaving consolidation among one or more districts the apparent answer. Two new board members were elected in May; they and the veterans will have to analyze the effects of a district continuing to operate on its own with some very small classes and costly administration.

The challenge will be to guarantee that students receive the educations they deserve while not excessively asking taxpayers to indefinitely approve large increases.

Historically, the New York State Department of Transportation has not been a model for managing construction projects in this region. When it comes to traffic and transportation, it has been assumed that South Fork municipalities best understand the unique ebb and flow of traffic that defines the area. In the case of recent roadwork by the Southampton Town, however, that assumption has proven wrong. Changes being undertaken in front of Cromer’s Market on Noyac Road, covering about 100 yards of road length, have made it clear that nothing about the state’s successful Route 27 project was taken into account.

Here is what was learned this spring as the state successfully resurfaced Montauk Highway from County Road 39 to Stephen Hand’s Path in East Hampton: Major road projects should be completed off-season and certainly before Memorial Day; such work should take place after 10 a.m. and before 3 p.m. if necessary during daylight, but preferably at night, and that one side of the road should be paved or nearly completed before the other side or shoulder is torn up.

The volume of traffic during high season here is such that all other routes east and west, including the back roads used as alternates, are clotted with cars. And like it or not, Noyac Road has become a popular option. So it was surprising that, on a recent morning at the height of rush hour, eastbound traffic was backed up past Trout Pond as drivers waited for about 30 minutes for a flagman to allow vehicles through on a single lane as work went on.

If Southampton’s Highway Department cared about residents, businesses, and the region’s air quality (surely compromised by the exhaust of scores of standing vehicles all day), it would make every effort not to add to the burden of traffic as people try to get to work, provide goods and services, run errands, or even breathe during the busiest time of the year. It should look to the state for guidance, as odd as that may seem.

Southampton’s approach to the community does not bode well for its plan to rebuild an aging bridge over Sagg Pond. With the way it has treated morning commuters in Noyac as an example, we can only watch with increasing concern.

When the numbers are laid out, they are stark: This year, between Thursday, May 22, and Memorial Day, a four-day span, there were 475 complaints about noise coming from aircraft using East Hampton Airport. This was nearly double the number recorded during the same period the previous year and, just as significant, the calls came from more than twice the households as in 2013. East Hampton Town officials clearly have a noise crisis on their hands.

The sheer scale of airport use is stunning. Over the four-day weekend, there were 872 “operations,” as takeoffs and landings are called in regulatory parlance, about 20 percent more than during the same weekend the year before. Of these, 341 were window-rattling helicopters, which led to the greater share of the public’s complaints. Furthermore, traffic controllers at the airport are beginning to say that the route changes designed to limit helicopter noise are instead creating potential problems.

Fiddling with routes only moves the problems around — and may be a danger to those in the air as well as those on the ground. Setting curfews on the noisiest aircraft and perhaps implementing curbs on the number of helicopters that can use the airport per hour appear to be ahead. East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said on Tuesday that there must be limits. How right he is.

A citizens group that advises the Southampton Town Board on matters concerning the hamlet of Bridgehampton has mobilized to fight a new CVS pharmacy at the intersection of Main Street and the Bridgehampton-Sag Harbor Turnpike. Southampton Town Planning Board review may delay what appears inevitable, but from our perspective the property is a perfect candidate for public acquisition using money from the  Community Preservation Fund.

For an example of how this could be in the community’s best interest, Southampton officials could take a look eastward. East Hampton Village bought the former Mark R. Buick car dealership at the corner of Accabonac and Pantigo Roads some years ago and removed the building. The result is a wide green lawn at the village’s eastern approach, a far-better outcome than the commercial shopping center that had been planned. And a CVS just happens to be nearly across the street, adjacent to the post office, with all the attendant traffic confusion and the bicycling death of a teenage girl in 2013.

Developing the Bridgehampton site to the extent apparently now planned would be terrible. The intersection is already one of the most dangerous in that part of town. It would be a shame to allow a commercial building to denigrate the aesthetic improvements at the Topping Rose House and, slowly, across Main Street at the Bridgehampton Historical Society’s Nathaniel Rogers House. Seen from the Ocean Road side, the now-vacant lot  would be welcome open space.

Southampton Town has, unfortunately, allowed Bridgehampton’s western approach to become an ill-managed  jumble of shopping centers and development, which incidentally already has a Rite-Aid pharmacy. The town now may have a chance to protect and enhance the other end of the hamlet. That opportunity should not be squandered.

—

An earlier version of this editorial misidentified the Bridgehampton parcel's owner as Leonard Ackerman of East Hampton. Mr. Ackerman sold his interest in BNB Ventures, the partnership that controlled the property, to Paul Kanavos and Adam Raboy of Flag Luxury New York City in 2012.