Not to sound ungrateful, but we are hardly alone in thinking that there are some 14 long weeks before we get our town back. An Amagansett innkeeper of our acquaintance said that the weekend just past was the strangest he had seen in more than three decades in business. In Montauk by Saturday noon, there were scores of people drinking on the upper deck at one of the more notorious bars. Traffic was terrible — and dangerous. At a grocery checkout counter Sunday evening, the checker helping to load bags looked on in dismay as six young share-house women, obviously a little tipsy, packed a young man into a shopping cart and tried to wheel him out of the store. It all seems a little too much, and too soon.

It is far easier said than done, but the path toward reclaiming this place for those of us who simply live here is clear: Rein in overcrowded clubs and bars, clamp down on illegal group houses and new developments, and put the brakes on the short-term rentals that only add to the frenetic pace.

If this weekend showed anything, it was that even a good thing can be bad when there is too much of it. East Hampton Town already has too much of too many things. It is time to tip the balance back. Sucking it up until September rolls around again, as one former town supervisor once advised, is no longer acceptable.

Make no mistake, a significant change in East Hampton Airport policy appears in the offing. After years of confrontation, pilots groups and anti-noise activists are talking to one another at last, with a sense of purpose and optimism about the future.

For far too long, much needed and sensible discussions about noise limits and the size of the airport were close to impossible. Some involved in the debate, including the majority of the previous East Hampton Town Board, clung to the idea that the only way to keep the airfield alive and well was by taking money from the Federal Aviation Administration even though accepting Washington’s money required so-called grant assurances that the airport be operated as the agency saw fit. A number of pilots and owners of aviation businesses, whose livelihoods depend on the airport, believed that the federal obligations were their only hedge against catastrophe. They would tell you in all seriousness that the ultimate goal of the anti-noise movement was shutting the field down altogether.

The old assumptions are now changing, thanks in part to the heavy use of the airport by commercial helicopter companies whose noisy aircraft run passengers in and out of the city at rates running into the thousands of dollars each way. This has made allies of former adversaries. Most of those concerned, including residents and elected officials of other neighboring communities, now agree that helicopters are the real problem and that unless their effects are lessened, public opposition to the airport is destined to reach a tipping point.

In the context of a new, more conciliatory town board, progress is being made. A committee coordinated by Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez recently determined that the airport could actually fund itself. This is critical, as several F.A.A. grant agreements are set to expire soon,  which will give the town a better chance of placing limits on helicopters.

A subcommittee of the group Ms. Burke-Gonzalez assembled told the town board that airport income from landing fees, rents, and fuel sales, among other sources, would be enough to cover borrowing more than $4 million this year and even more in 2015 and beyond. The math says that repairs and modest upgrades can be accomplished without taking another cent of Washington’s money, freeing the town from some regulatory oversight and increasing its options on noise control.

Ms. Burke-Gonzalez, in just her freshman year as a town board member, is to be congratulated for making the apparently impossible — getting both sides to sit down together — a reality. The difficult work of coming up with meaningful policy changes is yet to be done, but the groundwork appears to have been set.

The East Hampton Town Republican Committee has come up with an idea worth considering about the Peconic Bay Region Community Preservation Fund, the 2-percent tax on a portion of most real estate sales that is used by the East End towns to buy farmland, other open space, and historic properties. The committee has suggested adjusting upward the preservation fund thresholds to make it easier for homebuyers shopping at the lower end of the spectrum to close deals.

When voters approved the C.P.F back in 1998, two key caveats were included. The intention was that only higher-priced purchases would be subject to the 2-percent tax. In most of the five towns, the first $250,000 of the cost of a house or $100,000 of vacant land were not subject to the tax. The dollar amounts have been fixed ever since.

A huge sum of money isn’t being talked about here. However, with the first $250,000 exempt from the 2-percent transfer tax, buyers of the least expensive East Hampton houses might be responsible for paying less than $3,000 into the fund. A sum of that kind could make the difference between being able to cover closing costs or secure a mortgage. Back when the C.P.F. began, $250,000 could just about buy you a house in East Hampton; today, the absolute bottom of the market is roughly $475,000. Considering this, some adjustment appears overdue, although first-time buyers who meet certain income and eligibility limits already avoid the tax.

Another suggestion from the committee, however, would be counterproductive. It has been suggested that all town purchases with the C.P.F. be subject to optional public referendums. This appears to come as much from longstanding denigration of the value of land preservation as anything else and should be rejected. Getting land buys onto ballots, most likely only in November, could effectively shut the C.P.F. down. Only the most patient landowners are likely to be willing to wait and see the outcome of a vote before opting for a private sale.

Changes in the 2-percent transfer tax would require state legislation. Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. should follow up on the first recommendation, but leave the second one on the cutting room floor. 

East Hampton Town officials were on the right track last week when they denied a last-minute request for a permit from the operator of an annual for-profit bicycle ride to Montauk. Unfortunately, with as many as 1,500 participants already having paid up to $300 apiece, officials had little choice but to reach a settlement and allow the ride to go on.

However, the town asked the correct question this time around: Whether big, organized weekend outings with only marginal local benefit should be encouraged. Put another way, the issue was, and is, to what degree should residents have to put up with living in a playground for others.

Most people were only slightly inconvenienced as the Ride to Montauk throngs wound their way east. Still, drivers had to wait on Wainscott Main Street for a turn to get around groups of cyclists, and in some instances, bunched-up bikers swerved into the Montauk Highway traffic lanes. But, unlike last year, there were few calls for emergency assistance.

The intrusions are not limited to roads and bike events, of course. Commercial uses of public spaces are many and include paddleboard outings and kayak rentals at otherwise secluded locations, fitness classes on the sand and in parks, and resorts annexing portions of adjacent beaches for their guests’ exclusive use.

A new town committee has been taking a closer look at permit requests, particularly with an eye toward distinguishing between those that genuinely benefit local organizations and those that make inconsequential charitable donations as a form of cover. One key element of the committee’s work will be to convince officials to resist the temptation to review late permit requests, such as the problematic one from the Ride to Montauk organizers. An encouraging signal can also be found in the recently revised town mass-gathering law, which may soon be used to bring increased scrutiny to crowds at bars and restaurants, particularly outdoors, that are well in excess of those places’ legal maximum occupancy.

We expect to hear “no” a lot more often from Town Hall to requests that might have been swiftly green-lighted in the past. The balance, we hope, may be tipping back toward preserving peace, tranquillity, and less-hectic roads for those who call this place home — and none too soon.

    With annual school votes on Tuesday, the nearly complete lack of public controversy is striking, especially as two districts are seeking 60-percent support for budgets that will increase the amount brought in by taxes by more than a state-mandated cap. Notable as well is the absence of competitive races for school boards.

    We wonder whether everyone is just too busy now that the South Fork economy is humming again, whether the absence of heat reflects tacit public understanding that the schools are being managed satisfactorily, or something else. One possibility is that the constrained budgets and increased standardized testing have decreased the power of elected school boards, while the ever-increasing consolidation of authority of hired administrators and bureaucrats has diminished what elected overseers can actually accomplish. In many cases, superintendents sit at the head of the table at board meetings, signaling an inversion of the system of checks and balances. Almost no one appears to care that school boards and parents are now taking at best a supporting role in districts throughout the state.

    In East Hampton, voters will be asked on Tuesday to approve a spending plan that increases their taxes by 1.3 percent. This is a modest amount, but it does go beyond the state cap. Our sense is that the district should be given a pass this time around after digging relatively deeply in the search for cuts. However, the district should be forewarned that the next time around residents might demand that it take a harder line on what appears to be excessive administrative costs. The two incumbent board members running unopposed, Pat Hope, a no-nonsense former East Hampton High School teacher, and Jackie Lowey, a parent of two students in the district with a deep and impressive résumé, merit unequivocal support.

    Bridgehampton is the other South Fork district seeking voter approval to exceed the tax cap. No incumbents are running. Michael Gomberg, Jeffrey Mansfield, and Kathleen McCleland are on the ballot for two open board positions. We are impressed by Ms. McCleland’s and Mr. Mansfield’s clear commitment to the school and endorse them over Mr. Gomberg. We are less enthusiastic about the budget’s 8.8-percent tax levy increase. The district administration has said that the additional $1.1 million in the 2014-15 budget is necessary just to keep things where they are. Given that other districts are staying within the cap or close to it, that explanation isn’t quite good enough. Even if the spending plan is approved, however, a serious time of reckoning appears to have arrived for the district. Bridgehampton must quickly begin to explore how to cut non-program costs for the long term, whether by further sharing of services with nearby districts, or even consolidation.

    Despite all the pressures the Springs district faces in terms of a large and diverse student population its spending plan will stay under the tax cap. Teachers and administrators there have done an admirable job doing more with less, but how long that can continue is a worry.

    In Wainscott, voters have the curious pleasure of being asked to return David Eagan, unopposed, to the board. This follows a rebuke from the state comptroller last year over the district’s surplus income and Mr. Eagan’s arrest in February on a tax-fraud charge. He has laid the incident to a mistake, but there is reason for concern; it is not all that easy to get oneself arrested on such allegations. It is notable that residents either do not care or are willing to look past these red flags.

    Montauk has a bit of a competitive race for school board in an election that features a budget that stays well within the state limit. Jason Biondo and Cynthia Ibrahim are battling for one seat. We know Mr. Biondo well, his having been a reporter at The Star for several years. He is both outspoken and deeply involved in the community, which would bode well for his contributions to the district. Ms. Ibrahim likewise has a lot to offer. She has been involved with the Montauk Playhouse Community Center Foundation and is on the PTA. It is an extremely difficult call between two excellent candidates. The budget is actually down about $100,000 from last year’s and should cruise to approval.

    In Amagansett all appears well, with happy parents, no race for board seats, and a budget with only a modest increase that remains within bounds. Sagaponack’s increases are modest as well and stay within the cap. Cathy Hatgistavrou is running unopposed.

    Sag Harbor has three board seats in play, with Theresa Samot and Sandi Kruel hoping to stay on and Thomas Re and Diana Kolhoff opposing them. We are impressed by Ms. Kolhoff’s considerable education and teachers-advocate credentials. Ms. Samot has had three previous terms, and been the board president for three years; we respect her commitment and experience. And its budget also stays within the cap.

    Over all, the complacency sensed around this year’s school votes bodes well for those districts seeking to get above the 60-percent margin and break through the tax cap. Looking ahead, the time will soon come for consolidations. Millions are spent each year on administrative and back-office expenses that could be eliminated as smaller districts are joined into one or two larger systems. A potential benefit of regional school boards is that parents and taxpayers alike would become more engaged and demand greater accountability, better candidates, and more competitive elections.

    In the long run, the ennui that has gripped most districts this time around may be as much a cause for concern as an endorsement of a job well done.

    As the United States involvement in Afghanistan winds down, and in the aftermath of the protracted occupation of Iraq, it is as meaningful as ever for Americans to reflect on the contributions of those who wear this country’s uniforms. Monday’s East Hampton parade will stop traffic on Main Street for a brief time, the temporary silence a tribute in a small way to those who never made it home. This year, too, we will think of three men, two who were killed in combat and one who, though not veteran, touched the lives of many who were.

    The path toward a Medal of Honor for Lance Cpl. Jordan C. Haerter of Sag Harbor and Shelter Island, and a fellow marine, Cpl. Jonathan T. Yale of Virginia, who died defending a post in Ramadi, Iraq, in April 2008, remains to be completed. Representative Tim Bishop has put forward a bill in Congress that would honor them for stopping a truck bomb outside Joint Security Station Nasser, saving an estimated 50 marines and 100 Iraqis. It now rests with the House Armed Services Committee. We, like those in the men’s families and many who knew them, hope that the overdue review comes soon and that the bill advances.

    The other person brought to mind this Memorial Day is Chris Cosich, a competitive bodybuilder and personal trainer who founded Honor Flight Long Island, which takes World War II veterans to Washington to visit the military memorials. Over the roughly eight years the organization has existed, it has transported, free of charge, some 1,000 vets to the capital, many for the first time. As the Greatest Generation ages and rapidly declines in number, it is a race against time. Mr. Cosich died of suicide in April, but Honor Flight goes on.

    The South Fork should be proud to have counted such men as Jordan Haerter and Chris Cosich among its residents as well as the marine from Virginia and the many men and women who have served or are serving today in this country’s armed forces. Monday may be the only official day of the year to memorialize those who are gone, but recognition of what they did for others should be eternal.

    A recent East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals decision to allow the former East Deck Motel in Montauk to be buffered from the Atlantic by a 20-foot-high man-made dune appeared to sidestep several key questions — notably whether the project had adequate scrutiny and whether it might jeopardize the public use of the beach. The work was pitched as a restoration, but on closer look, it is far more than that and points to inadequacies in the law, which would affect how the town deals with such requests in the future.

    Ditch Plain (The Star does not use the “s” on the end of Plain in deference to old maps) has long been the site of considerable erosion. The Montauk Shores Condominium there is embroiled in a battle with the state over a stone sea wall, which apparently was expanded illegally, and waves have been nibbling at the East Deck property, which was bought by a partnership last year for $15 million.

    Paradoxically, the motel itself is not in imminent danger. Rather, the dune, which will replace a natural low bluff over most of the width of the property, will be proactive, meant to help stave off the ocean well before conditions worsen. Unfortunately, the town standard by which the project was reviewed is too lax; it does not take into account the new dune’s potential effect on a popular spot for beachgoers or on marine habitat and down-drift beaches.

    In addition, because the plan called for excavating the existing shrubby bluff, trucking in 6,000 cubic yards of sand and radically altering the coastal landscape, there should have been a more complete study of potential impacts on the upland portion of the site as well. It should be stressed that because the work was not needed to address an emergency, and because requests for additional changes may soon be sought for the site, there is a good chance that the zoning board application was a narrow and improper segmentation of a much larger plan to come.

    The former East Deck property’s anonymous new owners are not alone. In trying to save their multimillion-dollar beachfront investments, some property owners may actually be harming the beaches, and they are doing so with the help of local officials and the State of New York. This is because materials other than beach sand are being placed on eroding dunes and bluffs.

    Residents have begun to notice and ask questions, but they may need to pay even greater attention. During the hearing on the East Deck plan, one member of the zoning board said that previous work at Ditch included the placement of yellow, stone-laden fill, which was only marginally comparable to our billowy South Fork beach sand.

    Time was that local authorities and the state demanded that sand for such undertakings be mined only from the same littoral drift, that is, no bay sand on the ocean beach, and so on. Now, after sources have proven nearly impossible to obtain, the powers that be have allowed glacial till and worse. Some so-called restoration efforts have included material that contained chunks of concrete, brick, even ground-up hardtop tennis court — and this does not appear to bother most officials.

    The effect, though subtle to some, most notably those who are supposed to be watching, is that the quality and composition of some of the area’s beaches are being altered. In downtown Montauk, for example, rocks and stones can been found along the shoreline where almost none would have been a decade ago. This is the result of protecting a row of mostly outdated motels whose economic value to the community is debatable. Most of the jobs they provide are low-wage and seasonal, and many of the dollars flow out of town as quickly as they come in. Meanwhile, one of East Hampton’s most treasured natural assets could be diminished. And, if and when the East Deck dune is undermined, the material will end up in the ecosystem and under people’s beach blankets.

    The solution clearly is not the path most property owners and public officials would prefer. Nevertheless, East Hampton and other shoreline communities should stand and fight. They must adopt a policy of retreat and/or condemnation for threatened structures, combined with a beach-first mentality. Private houses, motels, and the like benefit the few; beaches are for the many, for all of us. The entire philosophy on coping with erosion must change — and fast — if remaining near-pristine shores are to be saved. It starts and ends with the sand.

    It is quite the wonder why two members of the last East Hampton Town Board were so vehemently opposed to an independent study of the unused Springs-Fireplace Road wastewater treatment plant now that a report on what should happen there has been released. As it turns out, their pet project to privatize the site would not only have cost the town a great deal of money, but would have contributed to groundwater contamination rather than alleviated it.

    Former East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley had tried and failed to push through a deal in which the town would have paid for expensive repairs plus a monthly fee in an unusual lease-to-buy handoff of the plant to a private firm. To make the figures work, the company would have accepted out-of-town sewage in addition to local waste.

    At the time, other board members cautioned that the whole wastewater picture needed to be reviewed before a decision was made. They stopped the proposed deal, and Mr. Wilkinson, who was ready to sign it at a February 2012 meeting, was livid.

    Now, the authors of the report say the best bet would be for the town to permanently close the plant, which has been operating as a money-losing transfer station, and put the savings of up to $50,000 a month toward more ecologically and financially sound projects. This is good advice, and confirms observations made by the town budget advisory committee, environmentalists, and others that the supervisor and Ms. Quigley should have better understood what was a stake before attempting to rush into a disasterous contract.

    The report contains several options for the road ahead, but the one that appears to have the most support is shutting the plant altogether. Rebuilding it could run $5 million or more, and annual operating costs could exceed $1 million. Instead, the report says, money might be directed to the doing something about the unknown number of under-performing individual septic systems in town.

    Prior efforts at providing incentives for upgrading residential cesspools, for example, have been under-funded and of limited effectiveness. Incentives are well worth considering, as upgrades would both save money and help protect drinking water and the environment. 

    Perhaps the single most important story in any recent Star was the one that appeared on the front page of last Thursday’s edition about the desperate need for adequate mental health services for school-age children.

    Think about what that means for a moment. What pediatricians, teachers, school nurses, administrators, and others are saying is that there are more kids at risk here than there are practitioners able to help them. This must change — and fast.

    School officials here would be the first to admit that there is a crisis under way. With few other choices for care, the East Hampton School District has referred 20 students with apparent suicidal thoughts to Stony Brook University Hospital in the last year and a half alone. Three South Fork students have killed themselves since 2009, and countless other forms of harmful behavior are reported, including substance abuse, eating disorders, and self-mutilation among students as young as 12.

    The problem also extends beyond the school’s reach. Medical professionals and those in related fields have been talking for some time about how to respond. As with nearly everything, however, money has been lacking. State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. is helping the East Hampton High School principal, Adam Fine, with a new approach that might provide funding for better and more abundant mental health services for the region’s youth. The energy and flexibility of private-sector groups should be tapped as well.

    This is a matter of the highest priority, and those working toward solutions are to be supported and commended. The kids need us; we must do everything and anything we can to help.

    By now local school boards are deep into the annual budget-writing season, and once again we hear that tax increases must be kept below the 2-percent cap. We believe the time has come, however, for boards to deal head-on with the state-imposed curb by bringing spending plans that would result in exceeding the cap to voters, if necessary, or by taking serious steps toward reducing costs by consolidating districts.

    Some history is necessary to understand the precarious place our schools are in thanks to the cap. In 2011, then-new Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state legislative leaders forced through a measure to provide tax relief to suburban homeowners. They had a point: New York had, and continues to have, some of the highest property tax rates in the country, although taxes on the South Fork are generally far less than in other parts of Suffolk.

    The rules now hold the increase in the amount brought in by property taxes for any local government in the state to 2 percent year-over-year or to the rate of increase in the consumer price index, whichever is less, although the cap is subject to some carve-outs. Schools and municipalities can increase property taxes beyond the cap provided that they do so with 60-percent approval. This would be relatively easy for a five-member town board, for example, in which taxpayers have no direct say on budgets, but it is tough for school districts, which must present their spending plans to the voters every spring. Very few have attempted to exceed the cap, as it has turned out.

    At the time the cap became law, education groups decried what they said would be negative effects on some programs and classroom quality. These fears now appear to be coming to pass. To some degree, districts stole time as the inflation rate remained flat during the Great Recession. Now, however, with costs of all sorts rising, notably salaries and utilities, pressure is increasing to find even more cuts to stay within the cap.

    The effects of the 2-percent cudgel already can be seen, both on educational quality and in terms of Mr. Cuomo’s presidential ambitions, in which he is hoping to avoid the label of a tax-and-spend Democrat. In his 2014 State of the State address, Mr. Cuomo repeated the tax-cutting theme, pointing out that there are more than 2,000 separate taxing entities in the state and calling for spending reductions.

    Locally, there are several examples of how the tax cap is crimping programs and harming kids. This year, the cap is set at a miserly 1.46 percent because the increase in the consumer price index is lower than 2 percent. In Springs, the board is deciding whether to skip a needed purchase of computers for students. At East Hampton High School, there have been cuts in art, home, and career classes. Middle school classes in East Hampton are packed, with as many as 30 students to a room in some cases — more than can be adequately taught, according to some teachers. And at the John Marshall Elementary School, kindergarten field trips and programs for advanced students have been eliminated, along with some take-home projects and Spanish instruction. This is not sustainable.

    The quality of education provided to this community’s children will only suffer as the years go on unless something is done. Further cuts to classroom activities, essential equipment, and extracurricular programs would gravely weaken the educational system itself. We believe school district voters would support well-presented programs even if they mean a tax increase that exceeds the onerous state limit.

    But if South Fork school boards cannot muster the courage to ask voters whether to exceed the cap, they must look for an alternative, and it appears that the only other option is pursuing an inevitable course toward consolidation.