While this area’s needy food pantries draw a large measure of the public’s attention and contributions, there are also any number of other outreach efforts that are worth acknowledging. And there are those that could stand a lot more notice — and charity.

    Some groups’ needs are astonishingly modest, and a dollar can go far. For example, the Springs Library, which used to get $2,000 annually from the Town of East Hampton, saw that cut in recent years. At the other end of the spectrum, in East Hampton, the Eleanor Whitmore Early Childhood Center must raise about $350,000 each year to provide its services. There are many more. Sag Harbor’s Fighting Chance helps those with cancer. Maureen’s Haven provides shelter and clothing to those without homes. The Retreat helps care for the victims of domestic violence and their families. The list goes on.

    Yet money is not the greatest need for some groups; many need help in the form of volunteers, such as the Retired Senior Volunteer Program and this area’s fire and ambulance departments.

    This is as good a time of year as any to think about others — and do what you can to help.

    As if traveling along the scorched shoreline of the River Styx, we were dismayed recently by what we saw among the wrack at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett. The season’s first meaningful storm had dredged up a summer’s worth of bonfire remains. Blackened logs and chunks of burned wood littered a full third of a mile to the west — in December.  

    There were few other signs of human presence, save for a few footprints. Litter was at a minimum, except for  a suspiciously high number of Corona beer caps and what apparently was the accidental losses of children’s toys. Several dozen yellow roses had drifted ashore, the result perhaps of a heartfelt memorial? But the appalling prevalence of bonfire detritis among the sea grass and shells left us saddened, upset that beachgoers would leave such messes behind and profoundly disappointed in the town officials who let this happen. It is much the same at the town’s other popular beaches.

    Gripped by a nostalgia for decades gone by, those responsible for setting policy have blinded themselves to the reality of the present age. We wonder if the members of the East Hampton Town Trustees may not walk these same shores themselves. And the town board — we cannot believe that these unbroken rills of charred wood are how its members want to present our most-cherished asset to residents and visitors. We doubt they need to be really afraid of a bonfire-loving backlash at the November polls. So why the inaction?

    Clearly, it is unpractical to ask town employees to enforce the existing no-burying regulation or make sure that the remains of fires are dug up the morning after. More must be done. For guidance, town officials need look no farther than East Hampton Village and the Town of Southampton, which have both in recent years instituted rules that all fires have to be within metal containers. These beaches are cleaner as a direct result.

    It is completely unacceptable for beaches to be so mistreated and for a winter’s walk to be so disheartening. The trustees and town board need to recognize that times have changed and to work on new rules that take into account the much more intensive uses to which our public lands are subjected. There may still be a few places where uncontained bonfires are appropriate, but East Hampton Town’s most popular ocean and bay beaches are not among them.

    Supervisor-elect Larry Cantwell announced the names of the new East Hampton Town attorney’s office staff this week. While judgment must be reserved until the public gets to know Elizabeth Vail and the members of her team, their résumés appear to be strong. Next comes the task of sorting out the town’s appointed boards, in particular deciding who should lead them.

    The prime examples are the planning, zoning, and architectural review boards. It is difficult to overstate just how important these boards are. They are the main line of defense against ill-thought projects and overbuilding. It is important to note that with so much of the town already subdivided, it is often the seemingly small decisions, when aggregated, that can cause major changes. The fight for East Hampton has, in effect, moved to our backyards.

    Builders, business owners, and some homeowners have lamented that the process takes too long. To them, we point out that, indeed, complicated projects will require detailed review, as will those in environmentally sensitive areas. Conversely, work for which zoning variances or site plan studies are not needed will get building permits speedily. The complainers should get over it.

    One thing that must be considered is whether a distinct tilt toward the appointment of people in real estate, building, architecture, and related fields should be countered. Roughly half the 17 people who make up the planning and zoning boards and the A.R.B. are either in these professions or in a closely allied industry. Residents should also be troubled that there are only four women among the total. As bad is that there is not a single African-American and only one Latino among the town’s key appointed boards.

    As Mr. Cantwell and the rest of the town board look over candidates for 10 open positions — and the chairmanships — they should keep in mind that diversity of backgrounds and between the sexes is more than warranted.

    A practice that East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell described at the first meeting of his tenure would be a simple fix to a fundamental problem of the previous administration, which frequently added resolutions on both routine and controversial matters to meeting agendas at the last minute and without public notice.

    Some of the more notable instances of this were several airport matters, scheduling a hearing for zoning changes at the behest of the Amagansett 555 developers, selling town land to a Montauk motel owner, and an apparently punitive audit of the town’s Human Resources Department.

    Also troublesome was the previous town leadership’s withholding of meeting agendas entirely — with the unfortunate exception of a private email sent to key sympathizers — until moments before meetings were to convene. Mr. Cantwell has said he will see that agendas are circulated at least two days before each meeting and work session.

    State open meetings law requires only that meetings be announced in advance so that members of the public can attend if they so choose. The law is also specific about what constitutes a meeting and what records must be kept, but it has little to say on the subject of agendas. It is clear, however, that prior distribution of a list of subjects to be covered is both standard practice and good government. A two-day rule, such as Mr. Cantwell has proposed, would keep interested parties — and minority party members — in the loop. This shift toward a more open Town Hall is to be commended.

    A corollary is that the board should decline to hear requests for mass gathering permits that do not meet the required application time frame. Those planning large events, which have in some cases proved controversial, should be expected to provide materials in a timely manner; they should be aware that they can no longer be the beneficiaries of limited scrutiny by town officials and the public, which occurred when late requests were considered. If there is time to plan a big party, there is time to get an early okay.

      In the waning days of the Wilkinson administration in East Hampton Town Hall we have found ourselves wondering if anything could be done to prevent future town leaders from amassing similarly flawed records. The answer may lie in something other local governments have had for years — an ombudsman whose responsibility is vetting residents’ complaints and weighing in on whether proper procedures are being followed.

       Criticism and legal setbacks have beset Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and his two Republican allies almost every time they strayed from what voters first put them in office to do — complete the process of righting the town’s financial ship, which actually began under the authority of the state comptroller’s office before they took office.

       Mr. Wilkinson’s two terms have been notable for the number of times officials have ignored zoning and environmental regulations and even the town’s comprehensive plan and waterfront program. They have stood by as businesses have expanded illegally and looked on in approval as commercial uses crept into residential areas. The town board majority also managed to anger Suffolk officials by destroying a parcel of preserved farmland, and they actually encouraged property owners to ignore the law on state coastal permits in at least two instances. Media coverage seemed to have little effect, and public outcry at meetings fell on unheeding ears.

       Some have said that hiring a town manager would go a long way toward making local government more professional and rational. Such a post, however, was not likely to have helped during the past four years, when department heads were intimidated by the executive suites and worked in fear of repercussion if they spoke up. Someone outside of the range of fire, who could call the members of future town boards — of any political party — on their missteps might have been the solution.

       Key to an ombudsman’s office would be impartiality and independence. A national organization that promotes the idea, the United States Ombudsman Association, describes the role as ideally filled by a person of considerable stature appointed in an apolitical way, with protection from changing electorial winds. An ombudsman would be able to initiate investigations and respond to the public directly, as well as to hire and fire his or her own staff. The office would also have guaranteed access to department records and personnel without interference from members of the town board or others.

       An ombudsman would, in short, be a potential nightmare for elected officials, but it could well be just what Town Hall has long needed — a people’s advocate.

    It is unfortunate that the final days of the East Hampton Town Board’s Republican majority have come down to this: a poorly considered proposal to amend the town’s zoning code in a way that would violate the comprehensive plan and, perhaps, state law.

    A public hearing expected tonight at Town Hall is on a proposal to create a new high-density land classification for older residents which could, by some estimates, add as many as 1,000 new housing units. Given that the sites that could be included in the new zone are largely ones for which the comprehensive plan has recommended less intensive uses, it is doubtful whether the proposal would be legal unless the comprehensive plan, the overarching vision document, were amended.

    The debate surrounding this does, however, bring to the forefront the question of whether elected officials are adequately meeting the needs of the town’s demographics. A perspective shared, we believe, by many employers and workers here alike is that much more must be done to make housing available for people with low and moderate incomes.

    Without a clear benefit to the community in the form of affordability or handicapped access, for example, allowing higher-density zones on individual properties would be illegal spot-zoning. Put another way, courts have said that if the benefits flow mostly to the developers, or run counter to a town’s comprehensive plan, a project may be invalid from the start.

    The concept is that in properly thought-out senior citizen zones, developers can be given permission for greater residential concentrations than normally allowed in return for assuring affordable housing. Special permits are granted only in exchange for reasonable rents, environmental protections, and other considerations, such as proximity to medical facilities, shopping, and public transportation. Then, too, such “floating” districts can be designed so that all ages might live there.

    Planning for an aging population cannot be overlooked. The proposal that prompted the hearing tonight, for luxury residences for people entering their golden years, is at best a faint response to that need. Nor can a case be made that well-to-do weekenders over 55 are in need of special accommodation. The market-rate concept put forward at a Connecticut developer’s behest is not the way to go.

    East Hampton Town may well require more housing options for young people, the work force, and its older residents. The proposal that was to be considered tonight meets none of these needs.

    Although the so-called 555 luxury housing project aimed at over-50 buyers in Amagansett is said to be dead, town board hearings on the creation of a new zoning classification for senior citizens, and on applying that zone to the roughly 25-acre 555 site, may well continue in the new year. The developers have not gone away and could be expected to consider alternate plans.

    In its initial version, Putnam Bridge, a Connecticut firm, hoped to build 89 units that could have produced as much as $100 million or more in sales. On Dec. 4, however, the Suffolk Planning Commission shot down the two zoning proposals, which had been crafted by the developers, by a stunning 11-to-2 margin. A town board vote to override the commission would require four of the five-member panel. As such, approval of the original plan appears extremely unlikely. This leaves what could happen on the property an open question.

    The 555 site, which for the most part has agricultural designation, comprises three parcels. Putnam Bridge bought it from the Principi family in 2012 for just over $10 million. The central portion is the largest, with 11.8 acres, and is most significant. Since cleared of scrubby vegetation some years ago, this part of the property has become a de facto Amagansett village green, hosting a number of events, most notably the annual Wounded Warrior Rock the Farm benefit and Soldier Ride. Because of this history, the project deserves a different kind of scrutiny by town officials.

    Ideally, the town might propose and the developers agree to a three-part solution. A truly affordable set of residences for those with low and moderate incomes could be approved for a portion of the easternmost lot, along Bunker Hill Road. This would comply with the comprehensive plan and allow greater residential density than its underlying zoning would otherwise permit. The western parcel, which has not been used for much to date, might be set aside for a limited number of market-rate apartments or a town house complex.

    Given the central section’s agricultural designation and its proximity to the Long Island Rail Road tracks, its value for high-end residences is limited anyway.

    It appears that the Principi family believed there were limited uses to which the central lot could be put and accepted only $1.7 million for it in 2012. That kind of sum might put its acquisition within the realm of affordability for the community preservation fund and allow it to continue to be used for benefits or perhaps recreational events.

    Putnam Bridge could develop the eastern and western parcels as allowed under current zoning and still make a profit. It would not be in the tens of millions as envisioned, but they should have understood that a luxury, 89-unit proposal was near to impossible going into it.

    A plan for the property along the lines of what we have proposed here could well be a win for all involved — including the community.

    Forget the polar vortex, there’s a word for the weather we have been having this week and it’s — drumroll, please — winter.

    If there is one thing old iceboaters can tell you, the South Fork usually experiences a cold snap right around the second week of January, and only a few years ago, relatively speaking, there would be weeks of hard-water sailing even on Three Mile Harbor. And, in what might be termed real winters a number of decades back, you could drive a car to Gardiner’s Island on the frozen bay if you were especially brave, or foolhardy. This winter? Feh. It’s supposed to hit the 40s by Saturday.

    For all the talk of sub-freezing temperatures and good-intentioned suggestions to “stay warm,” this winter’s story has not been one of cold but rather how mild it has been. The National Climate Data Center, a government weather records agency, has reported that there have been more than four times as many record high temperatures than record lows for the 30 days that ended on Sunday. For example, Baltimore had its warmest winter day ever on Dec. 22, when it reached 62 degrees.

    Whether these records can be linked to human-caused climate change is beside the point. The planet is getting warmer, no doubt about it. Face-numbing days like we’ve seen this week are difficult to cope with, but they are becoming fewer and further between, and that is the real and important story. Just ask any old iceboater.

    New York Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Tim Bishop are among a bipartisan group of Washington lawmakers pushing for a second round of reform of the recently reformed National Flood Insurance Program. Their call for action comes as an increasing number of property owners here and around the country have become aware of steep increases in their premiums, the result of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which sought to answer the program’s longstanding deficit. Debate in the Senate on a new Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act is expected this week. From the perspective of many on the East End of Long Island, change is necessary.

    The intention of the authors of the earlier reform of federal flood insurance was good: Since Hurricane Katrina, the program had accumulated a deficit as large as $25 billion. Biggert-Waters was supposed to address that by phasing in premium hikes to reflect actual risks and reduce the subsidy from American taxpayers at large, which kept premiums low. In the new math, the safer a property from flood damage, the lower the cost. The reverse was applied to the most at-risk properties, as set out on federal maps.

    As things unfolded, however, the increases soared beyond belief — as much as 1,000 percent in some cases; in isolated examples rates were said to be leaping from $4,000 a year to more than $40,000. As a result, real estate deals have been jeopardized or called off. Outrage is mounting.

    There is a hidden risk to the federal program if prices rise to the point that some property owners decide to drop coverage. In that scenario, Congress might well be inclined to spend billions following the next major flood or hurricane to pay for uninsured losses. It is interesting to note that the $50 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package is just about double the accumulated deficit of the entire program over its nearly four decades of existence.

    Reducing taxpayer subsidies for flood insurance is necessary and reasonable. Doing so without destroying real estate markets or pricing some people out of their homes is reasonable too. The measures outlined in the proposed affordability act attempt to strike that balance and deserve swift passage.

    A Springs Fire Department ambulance rushing a patient to Southampton hit a deer on Sunday. Other than the animal, presumably, no one was reported injured, but it added a punctuation mark to a week in which six deer were listed as struck by vehicles in East Hampton Town, with two incidents for which police reports were filed. In East Hampton Village, two deer-versus-car accidents were logged, with one resulting in a report.

    To those few readers who are lucky enough not to have encountered a deer while on the road, we can say that words fail to come close to the feeling of terror and helplessness as flesh strikes metal. For young passengers in particular, this can be a horrifying and nightmare-inducing experience. For the deer, the accidents are apt to be fatal, though their death is not necessarily or mercifully quick; police officers, and sometimes steel-nerved citizens, have to administer the final coup de grace. It is a brutal and painful business all around.

    Another issue has come to the fore as opposition rises against a planned professional sharpshooter kill on the South Fork. Traditional hunting cannot keep up with the need for herd control, nor can nonprofessionals be trusted in populated areas, such as the villages. Opponents of the cull, and the lawyers hired to fight it, have pointed to two surveys commissioned by the Town of East Hampton to gauge the deer population.

    One study, in 2006, estimated that there were more than 3,200 deer in the Town of East Hampton. This effort depended on roadside sightings and on mathematical estimates to come up with a total. In 2013, an aerial survey found 877 deer within town limits, but this study did not include estimates of a total number. Because the methodologies used in each were entirely different, no conclusion about population trends can be drawn. Claims of a decline in deer numbers cannot be made based on these disparate counts; those who try are wrong.

    Reports of deer-vehicle collisions rose from 25 in 2000 to 108 in 2011, according to the town, but these numbers are not necessarily proof of an increase in the population. It may well be that town and village officials should continue sampling, repeating either or both these studies as soon as possible, and perhaps annually, to see if a trend emerges.

    In the absence of conclusive data, we must look to experienced wildlife managers, such as those at the State Department of Environmental Conservation, for guidance. We also must consider the toll that these accidents take on deer, vehicles, and the emotions of those involved.