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.

    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.

      A Dec. 31 deadline for renewing enrollment for school tax relief, or STAR, is approaching fast. Those who do not register with the state by that date could lose their share of the 2014 break. Even those who have previously been in the STAR program have to sign up; state tax officials hope the process will check for income levels and help weed out cheats, such as those with double exemptions. Eligibility requirements are that a house be a primary residence and owner-occupied, and that household income be less than $500,000. Re-registration is with the state, not at local assessors offices. Property owners should have received a letter from the state with a code to use on the application. If they did not, or have questions, help can be found at tax.ny.gov.

       For South Fork property owners, the savings are not nearly as much as those in UpIsland areas with far higher school taxes. Still, a dollar is a dollar, and the program is well worth the couple of minutes it takes to re-up.

    Even after they are gone from office, the previous administration in East Hampton Town Hall continues to cause problems and in at least one case — an expected jump in fees for waste disposal — it appears to be by design. But former Supervisor Bill Wilkinson et al. do not deserve all the blame for the new board’s haste to increase fees. Before doing so, it must take a close look at what appears to be a bloated Sanitation Department.

    In a meeting this month, town board members were alerted to a roughly $300,000 hole in the sanitation fund, which was left in place by their predecessors. The 2014 town budget, approved in November, included more income from permit-cost hikes at the town’s two transfer stations, but the former board neglected to vote in increases in the cost of permits. Instead, it has fallen to Supervisor Larry Cantwell and the Democratic majority on the new board to approve sure-to-be-unpopular increases or come up with the money otherwise if it cannot make equivalent cuts.

    What’s unfortunate about this is that the sanitation fund is more or less a closed box — the deficit left by the previous administration must be filled from within because there is little room in the budget, constrained as it is by the state’s 2-percent tax-levy cap. Mr. Cantwell has said improved recycling rates may help, but that effect would be limited and take time to be realized.

    Under the newest proposal, the cost for most residents would rise 15 percent, to $115 for a household’s first permit. Those without permits would see the $10 per-trip fee doubled. Commercial haulers would see their costs go up as well, but by less-sharp margins. Though these increases may seem minor to some of those pulling in near-six-figure salaries in Town Hall, they would have a disproportionate impact on the many so-called self-haulers, a group probably least able to easily absorb the expense.

     An alternative, particularly for those who take only modest amounts of household waste to the transfer stations as well as for short-term or seasonal visitors, may be seen in Southampton Town. There, residents are required to buy specific green-tinted garbage bags for their garbage. The drop-off cost is included in the price, and recyclables are accepted without cost. In East Hampton on the other hand, residents must buy permits even if they take only glass, cardboard, and aluminum to the dump.

    One immediate advantage of the Southampton model is that because residents have to buy the bags, they almost instantly become frugal about their waste, producing less, compressing what they absolutely have to throw away into the smallest possible volume, and recycling more. It is a far more progressive and cost-efficient method than East Hampton’s.

    While East Hampton officials are at it, they also should take a close look at how Southampton runs its waste-disposal efforts. Excluding debt costs for both towns, East Hampton spends more than $1 million more a year on disposal even though Southampton has more than twice the population. Furthermore, Southampton Town has four transfer stations to East Hampton’s two, and two of Southampton’s four are open seven days a week; both of East Hampton’s are closed on Wednesdays.

    As for the number of employees, the disparity is glaring: Despite a larger operation, Southampton has fewer, 13 to East Hampton’s 19, and none makes more than $100,000 a year in combined salary and benefits as do two in East Hampton. Want more? The East Hampton Sanitation Department’s annual electric bill is more than twice Southampton’s. Why? Who knows, but this is among the myriad questions town officials should ask well before they rush to stick it to residents in the form of higher fees.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Online petitions and a well-funded legal challenge aside, South Fork local officials who are moving toward large-scale killing of deer, politely called culling, have a difficult time ahead. Leadership is never easy when policy gets mixed up in emotion, and wildlife management is one of the most emotional aspects of government. Few other issues draw as much attention and heat from the public, making the job of deciding how to proceed fraught with tension from the start. But rational, dispassionate policy-making must be foremost in such instances. The key for officials is studying precedents in other communities and what science says.

    The problems are well understood. A spike in deer populations in the eastern United States has come at the same time as sharp increases in the type and number of disease-carrying ticks. Deer cause huge and nearly unmeasurable damage to landscaping and crops. Those struck by vehicles often meet terrible, painful deaths, which are heart-wrenching for us. Deer have radically altered the forest understory in many places, leading to habitat loss for other native species, such as songbirds and small mammals, and threatening biodiversity.

    Deer are not the only large animals for which aggressive control measures are being taken. Black bears as nearby as suburban New Jersey have adapted to life close to people and are being targeted by wildlife managers. Time magazine featured a cover story this month about what it called America’s “pest problem.” Expanded hunting and professional harvests have been pursued from Florida to California. Closer to home, Block Island officials recently voted to hire sharpshooters to reduce the deer herd from 800 to 100 individuals, according to low estimates. The target there is to maintain the deer population at 10 to 15 per square mile.

    No one knows for sure precisely how many deer there are on the South Fork, and their distribution is not in even numbers across the island. The Town of East Hampton’s two surveys came in with widely disparate numbers — 877 in a March aerial study and 3,293 in a 2006 roadside count. Estimates of the density in East Hampton Town are all over the map, but could be as high as 100 per square mile. Though a clearer total should be known before a long-term program is undertaken, by all appearances there are just too many deer. There are few residents who have not at one time or another struck a deer on the road or had someone in the family touched by tick-borne illness. And now there is a rising count of people with a serious and life-threatening allergy to red meat caused by the bite of the lone star tick.

    Those opposed to hunting claim there is no valid link between deer and ticks, but scientific studies say otherwise. Large, warm-blooded hosts such as deer have been clearly implicated in this regard — one must not overlook that it is the deer tick that carries Lyme disease as well as babesiosis, ehrlichia, and borrelia. True, the rodents that larval ticks first feed on are believed to be the reservoirs for the illness-causing spirochetes, but it is undisputable that concentrations of all tick varieties have soared along with the deer’s numbers.

    A public health crisis is under way, with deer clearly implicated. Research has demonstrated that maintaining deer at 8 to 12 per square mile essentially eliminates ticks and the diseases in humans. Deer birth control has not proven to be an adequate alternative to hunting. Nor does applying pesticides at feeding stations solve the problems of habitat devastation and deer-vehicle collisions. It is also not acceptable for residents to have to avoid the woods and wild places for fear of ticks in other than the coldest months.

    Those passionately opposed to the planned killing appear to overlook the fact that the present environment is one in which nature’s balance has been overturned by centuries of human presence. In the case of deer and other highly adaptable wildlife, there still is no substitute for lethal management.