The East Hampton School Board announced last week that it is likely to seek voter approval to exceed the state cap on tax increases for 2014-15. The move is not entirely unexpected, and appears justified, at least for the coming year. But this should not be the end of the discussion about taxpayer support of public education.

    Thanks to holding expenses in check for several successive years, the district has been able to meet the so-called 2-percent cap, but there is very little left now to cut from the budget in East Hampton — or in other large South Fork districts that have met the cap. Students already seem to have been negatively affected. Going further would mean seriously undermining educational quality.

    As we have noted before, the pressure comes from the top, specifically from New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s often-stated interest in property-tax relief. As Mr. Cuomo sees it, the state has too many small taxing entities, which results in too much money coming from state residents’ pockets. The governor believes that trimming school spending through shared services is the best way to meet the challenge.

    On eastern Long Island, where the schools take in the largest portion of the money raised by taxes, the governor’s ideas for reform appear to have plenty to recommend them. Each of the often small districts seems top-heavy with administrators pulling in six-figure salaries and ample benefits. While some resistance is to be expected from those who might see their fiefdoms reduced, a new, hard look at consolidation, particularly at the top of the pay scale, should be taken.

    Voters, we suspect, will be supportive of districts that seek to go above the tax cap this year, and perhaps for one or two more cycles. Beyond that, however, patience as well as wallets will begin to get thin. Looking toward the long term, seeking ways to reduce the administrative costs of education by consolidation is something that must be considered.

    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.

    The East Hampton Town Trustees’ concern about a possible alcohol ban at some ocean beaches should not be allowed to derail it. They own most of the beaches and should have been included in the discussions so far, but there is still time to join the conversation.

    High-season weekend crowds at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett have reached a point of beer-drenched popularity that makes many residents uncomfortable and members of the lifeguard corps worried. The time has come do something about it, regrettably perhaps for those who remember how things used to be.

    Under present rules, East Hampton Town beaches are among the very few on Long Island where open drinking of alcoholic beverages is tolerated. For the past few years, this has helped give rise to huge, if informal, gatherings that have to be seen to be believed. And seen them we have.

    On several visits in the last two years we watched as hundreds of young adult visitors gathered at Indian Wells to socialize, play Frisbee and volleyball, and drink themselves into a warm, happy glow. During one visit, we watched an impromptu drinking game that involved men throwing full cans of beer from the beach to others in the water. By evening, Bud Light cans (the beer of choice for some reason) littered the sand or were piled with their empty packaging at the overflowing trash cans. Family friendly, Indian Wells is no longer. This repeats over and over until Labor Day, and has disturbed many regulars who are now looking for other places to go.

    In response, East Hampton Town officials have been working on what amount to half-measures, changing traffic routes, attempting to block taxis and buses from getting close to the beach, and adding parking. But these steps miss the central problem: Given a place to gather and drink themselves silly, some people are just going to do it, even if they have to walk to get there.

    The East Hampton Town Board has hoped to hold a hearing to gauge public opinion on prohibiting alcohol at beaches where and when lifeguards are present — or a variation on that theme. Giving law enforcement the ability to issue tickets for violations would go a long way to tamping down the party, but new rules cannot be put in place at Indian Wells or Atlantic Avenue Beach nearby without the trustees’ consent.

    This is a reasonable proposal. In East Hampton Village, among others, alcohol is banned at all times in public spaces, including the beaches. The trustees appear cool to the idea, fearing, as their elected clerk, Diane McNally, put it, a domino effect at other beaches.

    Ms. McNally is, of course, correct that further bans might follow, but that does not make the concept wrong. On the contrary: Large crowds, water, and alcohol do not safely mix. Confining drinking to the evening hours and beaches where lifeguards are not present would appear to be good policy. And, unless a better alternative can be found, the trustees should at least agree to a trial period.

    With a wink and a nod, East Hampton Town officials went out of their way to lavish praise and give quick approval for a project that radically altered a portion of the Montauk oceanfront landscape. Now, the suspiciously anonymous owner of the former East Deck Motel at Ditch Plain is dangling an expensive thank-you in the form of tons of fill that would be used at his or her cost to build a protective berm at a public parking lot nearby. Officials should think twice.

    Before accepting a gift with a value that could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the East Hampton Town Board should know whom they are dealing with. And, if they already can put a face to the project, they must let the public in on what they know. More troubling is the likelihood that the donation might be a quid pro quo in which officials continue to look with over-deserved favor on the changes at the property that are rumored to be coming up soon for their review.

    Something puzzling is afoot on the Ditch Plain shore, and the town cannot responsibly proceed without knowing who the players are and what they have in mind.

    A Manhattan man’s nightmare that began after the apartment he rented out using an online service has implications for would-be landlords and policymakers on the South Fork. Ari Teman is now faced with eviction and living in a hotel room after someone who rented his Seventh Avenue pad via Airbnb used it to host a for-profit orgy.

    Airbnb, Homeaway, VRBO, and other short-term-rental services have become ubiquitous in places like New York City — and the Hamptons — where there are more people trying to visit than there are reasonably priced hotel rooms during peak periods. And, while few South Fork visitors are likely to be hosting pay-to-play sex parties, would-be tenants here are often quite open about plans that fall on the wrong side of local laws.

    For example, many potential lessees use online services to troll for houses where they can then illegally sell summer shares. Sure, East Hampton Town allows no more than four unrelated adults to occupy a dwelling, but landlords receive pitches all the time from people looking to get around this rule. Then there are the folks who offer to rent places for as little as a single night’s occupancy in what amounts to de facto hotels, which add to the general sense of overcrowding and bring neighborhoods unfair stress and traffic. It is a daunting problem.

    This week, VRBO, short for Vacation Rentals by Owner, listed scores of houses in East Hampton Town that could be rented by the night or week — even though the legal limit is no more than two rentals of less than two weeks’ length in a six-month period. Elsewhere, Airbnb boasted more than 400 listings — excluding Amagansett and Montauk — many of which boasted photographs of the eager owners and identifiable street addresses.

    Local officials, many of whom have been seeking ways to bring greater order and fewer crowds to summer on the South Fork, cannot continue to ignore these online marketplaces. One way to start getting things under control is by demanding that these companies refuse listings that obviously violate local ordinances, or at least by insisting that they post prominent disclaimers. Another way to get at the problem is to alert perhaps oblivious property owners in advance that they could be breaking the law by offering share-friendly houses or too many short-term stays.

    East Hampton Town has worked long and hard to control its growth, which includes the high-season population. Every effort should be made to make sure that our summer numbers are in step with long-term goals and hard-won rules and regulations. The way to control the problem starts at its source, and that means taking on the online services that make it all possible in the first place.

    New York’s swans may have been unaware that their goose was nearly cooked when the state announced a plan to eliminate them in a decade. But abandoning the swan population’s reduction raises a basic question about public pressure and legislative interference in science-based policy.

    In a sense, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation picked the wrong creature to mess with earlier this year when it said it hoped to eradicate nonnative mute swans, a Eurasian species, by 2025. The D.E.C. reasoned that the swans have a negative effect on other wildlife, contribute to water pollution, and destroy aquatic vegetation. In addition, although the large birds are beautiful, they are often aggressive toward people and can present a risk to aircraft. A hunting season for swans was among the options for controlling their numbers.

    Well, that was just about all many people could take, especially here on the East End, where opposition to a proposed deer-herd reduction by hired sharpshooters had animal activists already riled. The D.E.C. reported that it was deluged with more than 1,500 direct comments, 16,000 form letters, and 30,000 signatures on a variety of petitions from people upset by the swan’s elimination. Meanwhile, lawmakers got involved, presenting bills in the Albany Legislature demanding another look.

    State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle and Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. were among those sponsoring measures that would tie the D.E.C.’s hands. Both the Senate and Assembly bills demanded that state scientists look again at mute swans and demonstrate “actual damage” to the environment. Sounds good, but we doubt that the state’s wildlife biologists had made their recommendation without ample consideration, even though the agency is understaffed and underfunded.

    In response, Joe Martens, the D.E.C. commissioner, headed off the Legislature and has taken the swan-kill plan back for a second look. A new version is due in the spring and may include regional differences, such as leaving Long Island’s population alone but taking a harder line upstate, where negative impacts may be more pronounced.

    While the reprieve may satisfy the swans’ many fans, it is an emotionally driven victory in decision-making that should really be based on the views of the professionals at the D.E.C. As with the collapse of the proposed deer cull here, affection for the photogenic species clouded the matter.

    It is not surprising that the agency was attacked for its plan. However, it would be unfortunate if it abandoned a serious, dispassionate study of them — and other invasive species — simply because many people like the way swans look. What lawmakers should do is provide more funding for the D.E.C. and the environment; what they should not do is micromanage science.

    A pending public purchase of a roughly 16-acre parcel in Springs and allowing the site to be subdivided and developed, with an eight-acre, private reserved area, are not the same thing at all. Yet that is what some in the hamlet and a committee that advises the East Hampton Town Board appear to believe.

    The land is at 115 Neck Path and has a house roughly in its center. The issue is whether $2.7 million from the town’s community preservation fund should be used to buy it. The owners are willing to sell to the town, but at the same time are seeking approval for a three-lot subdivision.

    The perspective of those who are against the deal is that the subdivision, if approved, would set aside ample open space and that the town’s buying the land would remove it from the tax rolls. It’s kind of a have-your-cake-and-eat-it too idea.

    We think the property must instead become public land in its entirety and the house that is on it now should be removed.

    East Hampton residents have several times shown their support at the ballot box for the community preservation fund. Among its goals are retaining and improving the town’s environment and character, as well as limiting development. Money in the fund comes from a 2-percent tax on a portion of most real estate transactions, and thanks to the newly booming market and several years in which spending lagged, there is plenty of cash in hand and then some. According to the town, East Hampton’s C.P.F. income last year had reached well into pre-Great Recession levels, and there is no sign of a slowdown. The money is there; what will not be there forever is suitable places to spend it.

    The land at 115 Neck Path would appear to satisfy several of the qualifications listed as the town’s C.P.F. program goals. These include woodland preservation, groundwater protection, and adding to greenbelts and trails. As to the point about taxes, development over time costs municipalities more than does leaving land alone. Springs already has the highest residential density of all the town’s hamlets — and adding to that would be counterproductive.

    The acreage is roughly rectangular, extending to the back of the secluded Shaaray Pardes Accabonac Grove Cemetery. It is important to note that it is sandwiched between two town-owned lots, one of which shares a property line with another that reaches to Old Stone Highway. If the deal closes, there would be some 66 acres of open space in all there, extending from Old Stone to Neck Path in an area right smack in the middle of the Accabonac Creek watershed.

    Regarding C.P.F. purchases in general and this property in particular, there is much to be said for maintaining and preserving contiguous woodlands. It is a conservation axiom that fragmented forests are less than optimal habitat for many wild species.

    For the town board to agree with the Springs group that allowing three houses there is the same as saving and restoring the land would be to undermine the preservation fund itself. The deal should go ahead as planned.

    Following House passage earlier this month of a bill that would repeal some of the sharpest rate hikes in the federal flood insurance program, pressure is building in the Senate to rapidly approve the measure without amendment.

    The matter is of tremendous importance on eastern Long Island, where second-home owners and new buyers have had to deal with huge increases in annual premiums. This not only affects waterfront properties; residents, heirs, and would-be sellers in many of the town’s, and the country’s, low-lying areas must now deal with sudden, surprising, and in some cases, unbearable costs.

    A change of ownership even after a family member’s death or the re-mapping of risk areas now triggers rate hikes of as much as 100 percent in the first year, with more to come unless Congress acts. The rules are brutal, unfair, and make no sense.

    The changes came from the 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, which attempted to close a deficit in the program that only worsened after payouts for Hurricane Sandy. But the revision, which sought to end a taxpayer subsidy, came at too high a cost. The outcry was immediate as those impacted realized they were being asked to pay to cover gaps in the program as a whole.

     Representative Tim Bishop, whose district includes East Hampton, was among the sponsors of the House’s Flood Insurance Affordability Act (H.R. 3370), and said in a release that it would prevent rapid leaps in premiums. It seeks to balance the books through annual surcharges on everyone in the program, which covers 5.6 million properties. The surcharge would be $25 for owner-occupied residences and $250 for vacation houses and commercial sites. This is far more even-handed than penalizing the relatively few people every year whose houses change hands or whose property statuses are altered in revised flood maps.

    The Senate appears ready to quickly pass the House bill instead of seeking to reconcile it with its own, which was approved in January. Senator Charles E. Schumer, who has spoken out on behalf of Rockaway residents and others hurt by the new rules, is a strong backer of the reform effort.

    Beyond the question of fairness, the Biggert-Waters rules threaten to erode the flood program if too many property owners opt out. Insurance only works when there is a big enough pool to cover potential losses. Keeping as many people in the program and spreading the costs as widely as possible appears the only course toward solvency. Saving the program and helping homeowners is the right thing to do.

    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.

    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.