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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

   The Star suggested last week that an ombudsman (or woman) — independent, forthright, and tough — might well be worth considering for an East Hampton Town government that has suffered from inappropriate or incompetent leadership for nearly a decade. That observation was made before county officials delivered a stunning repudiation last week of a Town Hall plan to create a new high-density housing zone for wealthy, over-50 residents and to apply it to a site in Amagansett.

    A vote against the plan by the Suffolk Planning Commission was not even close. Despite an inexplicable recommendation in favor of the rezoning from county staff, commission members voted against it, 11 to 2. They cited four key problems: the lack of affordable housing, the loss of agricultural soils, nonexistant environmental review, and the contradiction of the town’s own comprehensive plan. A hearing next Thursday in Town Hall on the matter should not have been scheduled in the first place, as the commission’s observations were not unique. Whether a town ombudsman could have headed off this mess is hard to say, but at least the plan’s consistency with local law would have been addressed.

    Dating back to Supervisor Bill McGintee’s financial crisis, there has been a sense that an amateur town board has been operating without a net, so to speak, and in the absence of confident and thorough review. Advice from the town attorney’s office is affected by the fact that the staff serves in appointed positions, which are hardly independent. Supervisor Bill Wilkinson’s tenure has been no better than his predecessor’s, and, in terms of zoning law, illegal commercial expansion, and neighborhood degradation, the damage may well prove far more persistent.

    Complacency may be a risk as Larry Cantwell takes over as town supervisor with a well-qualified board of equals, including the soon-to-be-former town clerk, Fred Overton. One has the sense, based on Mr. Cantwell’s long and unblemished public service in East Hampton Village, that a new professionalism will rule the day on Pantigo Road. The danger will be in the years to come, after Mr. Cantwell moves on. Having seen the last two deeply troubled town administrations, voters would do well to press for structural changes in town government that would help prevent future debacles. This should be a first-year priority for the new administration.

    Where to start? That question has to be swirling around as a new East Hampton Town Board majority prepares to take over in the new year. Unfortunately, because many protections were ignored during the Wilkinson years, there will be a lot of work to do just to bring the town back to a regulatory baseline.

    The big, marquee property issues will have to be tackled promptly, if attention to other, small-scale legal violations are to have credibility. These include questionable expansions in Montauk at Ruschmeyer’s Inn, the Montauk Beach House, and the Panoramic resort, as well as what goes on at the Dunes, a drug and alcohol rehab center improperly sited on residential property in Northwest Woods. Also on the list should be a close look at a number of restaurants that predate zoning and appear to have expanded illegally or to be operating in defiance of conditional town approvals.

    Renewing even-handed and effective enforcement of the town’s land-use and environmental laws must be at the forefront, along with a review of key personnel, including the town’s legal team. On the environment, officials will continue to have to take on over-clearing of natural vegetation, and they are now likely to have greater support from the board for their efforts.

    Problems of overcrowded housing, whether by year-round workers or seasonal young professionals, will have to be addressed. Also meriting attention will be the recent rise of online services such as Airbnb, which allow for the de facto conversion of some houses to micro-hotels.

    At the center of what we believe is a much-needed push is the East Hampton Town Comprehensive Plan. This document was created after hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of work by citizens, consultants, and officials, and it serves as a blueprint for managing the stresses of growth. Summarized, one of its core observations was that change must be aggressively managed to maintain the East Hampton Town that its residents know and love. Seeing to its implementation should be the new town board’s overriding mission.

    Members of the Wainscott Citizens Advisory Committee were proud last week as they unveiled large new signs at the eastern and western ends of the hamlet. For the life of us, we cannot figure out why adding to the already jumbled roadside clutter along Montauk Highway is desirable, but, if that’s what they want to do, so be it.

    While we are on the subject of signs, however, there is one practice that bears stopping in its tracks — slapping the town supervisor’s name on everything from the billboard-like placard at the airport road to the sign at the Abraham’s Path youth park.

    Try as we might, we cannot remember just when this began. Time was, you had to really accomplish something — or depart for the great beyond — before your name went up. These days, the sign painters get busy at the turn of each administration to put up the supervisor’s name wherever they can.

    What is misleading about East Hampton Town supervisors’ names on signs is that the job really does not come with much more authority than that of the other members of the town board. The supervisor gets to write the annual budget, but he enjoys precisely the same number of votes when it comes to its approval — one. And, to be honest, more often than not disaster has been the result when town supervisors have gone it alone.

    As the confident Larry Cantwell takes over, along with a new board majority, we hope he and the others will resist the siren song of such pointless self-aggrandizement. Good reputations will build themselves.