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.

    The good news in a recent New York Times Science section story about sea level rise is that Montauk’s tide records lag behind those in places along the eastern United States coastline that are becoming inundated the fastest. The bad news is that the advantage is not by much. According to the numbers, the waters have come up about a foot every 100 years and are coming faster, with the greatest increases in the mid-Atlantic states. This means that the landward migration of the shoreline will continue unabated here, and even get faster. Property owners and local officials who ignore this are simply kidding themselves.

    In December, the Eastern Long Island Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group, issued a statement supporting major changes along the Montauk oceanfront. It called for one of the Army Corps of Engineers options: rebuilding protective dunes after removing several motels and residences that are now in harm’s way. This echoed a view expressed on this page earlier in 2013 to the effect that think-big solutions were the best choice.

    Pumping sand in front of exposed properties at this late stage would be a temporary solution at best and a waste of both money and precious time before a better one is at hand. Rather than outright property condemnation, however, town and federal officials should consider more creative redevelopment of the seaward edge of downtown Montauk, perhaps granting motel owners air rights over existing retail parcels or the use of nearby lots that are vacant or underutilized.

    Meanwhile, away from the most obvious at-risk spots, shoreline restoration projects continue. These, too, must be re-evaluated and incentives found to coax property owners into long-term decisions. East Hampton Town needs to rethink fast how it interacts with the waters that surround us. The sea will not wait while policymakers wonder what to do.

    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.

    After she had loaded up her car and headed to the Montauk waste transfer station, a woman of our acquaintance was surprised Tuesday morning to discover that it was closed. She was not alone.

    New York is among some eight states that have declared the date a holiday for its employees; many other municipalities followed suit. Any number of people have been flummoxed by the Election Day shutdown of nearly all East Hampton and Southampton Town services, Town Hall, and most public schools, ostensibly to give staff an opportunity to get to their polling places.

    This is nonsense, of course. Polls in New York State open at 6 a.m. and close at 9 p.m. — surely anyone who needed to vote early or late would have an opportunity to do so. This is especially true for many town workers, whose days start around 8 or 9 and begin to taper off around 3 in the afternoon. No, something more must be at play here.

    Not to sound old-fashioned, but there seems to be a tinge of laziness about officialdom taking the day off. At least by South Fork standards, many public employees — and nearly all elected ones — are rather well paid for what they do, and, from our perspective, should be on the job more rather than less. It is a puzzlement that on the one day when communities are supposed to focus on their governance, government chooses to stay home.

    By announcing this week that Len Bernard, the East Hampton Town budget officer, will stay on in what has traditionally been a political post, Supervisor-Elect Larry Cantwell has signaled that he will stress pragmatism over party. While the news is not a big surprise — Mr. Cantwell had hinted about this earlier — the hope is that the appointment indicates a new professionalism in how the town does business.

    Mr. Bernard’s credentials are long. A former town councilman, he was the budget officer during Supervisor Jay Schneiderman’s terms, then moved among several related posts before returning to Town Hall at Supervisor Wilkinson’s behest. By now he knows the ins and outs of town finances as well as anyone. In a spirit of cooperation, he was quick recently to agree to look into a longstanding error in the way the costs for some town projects have been shared by village residents. The stability his remaining in the post will provide will be valuable.

    As the new town board begins work in January, its members should seek other ways to develop a greater degree of long-term, steady capability to key offices. For example, the critically important Building Department and the town attorney’s office have been underserved in recent years. Then, too, departments such as Planning and Natural Resources must be more fully incorporated into policy-making.

    The big question is whether the logical next step, a hired town manager, is a good idea. Given Mr. Cantwell’s 32-year tenure in a similar role for East Hampton Village, this will probably get a meaningful look. There are a considerable number of local government observers who believe the time has come for a top town staffer. On the other hand, there is reason for concern about the increased concentration of authority in one person’s hands. A town manager would be a very big step and may not be a cure-all for Town Hall’s ills. While this idea is being worked out, keeping the best people on the job — and respecting their views — is a sure way to improve local government.

    In a dramatic move supported by the governor and historical precedent, the State of New York is expanding its post-Hurricane Sandy buyout offer to an entire Staten Island neighborhood. Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Monday that all 129 developed properties in an at-risk neighborhood called Ocean Breeze would be eligible, with prices based on their values before the storm. Some 117 owners already have indicated they will say yes.

    The program is remarkable in that residents and government appear to agree that a stand-and-fight approach to the coast will not work in all cases. Speaking on Staten Island on Monday, Governor Cuomo said, “As many communities who want to participate, we have money.” Those with imperiled houses on the East End of Long Island should pay close attention.

    Ocean Breeze is a low-lying community surrounded by salt marsh, but it is not beachfront; it is separated from Lower New York Bay by Father Capodanno Boulevard, a couple of hundred yards of scrub, and a boardwalk before you get to the water. Nor, with an elevation of about 10 feet, is it even in the worst-rated federal flood zone.

    If enough people agree to sell and move on, the roughly four-block area would be restored to nature. The idea is to remove houses from a danger zone and to create an environmental buffer to protect others. It is a smart, aggressive concept, one that meets the increasing threat to coastal development with eyes wide open. It also stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken here when it comes to thinking about hurricanes, northeasters, rising sea level, and the danger to structures too close to the shoreline.

    Money for Ocean Breeze comes not from Congress’s Hurricane Sandy relief, which unfortunately is turning into a slush fund for ill-thought-out undertakings. Instead, the New York Rising Home Buyout Program is funded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This means that in contrast to the armor-first mentality of the Army Corps of Engineers — and those contractors who stand to make money performing the work — a more pragmatic, long-term approach is possible.

    State Assemblyman Michael Cusick, whose Staten Island district was devastated during Sandy, understands the stakes. In a press release this week, he lauded the program, saying that the region is seeing more frequent extreme weather and that Ocean Breeze is “at risk of getting hit hard again by another storm.”

    Also recently, State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. issued a statement calling attention to the danger. “As we pass the one-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and pass the two-year anniversary of Hurricanes Irene and Lee, we are reminded of the destruction that was left in the wake of these storms. Storms of this magnitude, which used to be considered ‘once in a lifetime’ occurrences, are happening more and more frequently,” he wrote.

    On the South Fork, where by historical hurricane standards Sandy barely registers, it may be some time before the preponderance of public opinion matches that of residents of the worst ravaged areas. Here, local officials are allowing waterfront residents to expand their houses, which will only increase the cost of any hypothetical buyouts or disaster recovery. At the same time, they are, as in the case of the Dune Road elevation project in Southampton, investing in infrastructure without considering whether it is the right thing to do. At Montauk, current town officials are backing a response to ongoing erosion that seems to date from an earlier era when we understood far less about the forces of nature.

    Unfortunately, when Congress funneled taxpayers’ millions to the Army Corps of Engineers in the wake of Sandy, it all but predestined a retrograde approach. It is up to informed citizens, civic groups, and enlightened elected leaders to recognize that other solutions, perhaps such as proposed for Ocean Breeze, are well worth consideration and may offer the better course for decades to come.

    A friend was on a public radio show recently describing the seven things she believes you should never talk about if you don’t want to bore the pants off everyone. We suggest you use these as guidelines for the Thanksgiving table — a do-not-discuss list, or, at least, pointers to help stifle the tryptophan yawns.

    Maria Matthiessen, whose daughter Sarah Koenig once worked at The Star and is now a producer at “This American Life,” listed her conversational taboos for the program. They are: menstruation stories, diet updates, health reports (of a trivial sort), how you slept, your dreams, money, and “route talk,” as Mrs. Matthiessen calls it (that is, those fascinating recountings of how you got from point A to point B).

    If you have not yet heard the episode, which runs about an hour, let us just say that it is a very funny mother-daughter duel and well worth tracking down on the website of Chicago Public Radio, which offers a stream or podcast. In the program, several “This American Life” producers take turns in a contest of sorts in which they try to prove Mrs. Matthiessen wrong by offering up stories on her verboten subjects that they hope are non-boring. Sarah keeps score, and we will not reveal who wins in the end.

    Among a certain N.P.R.-listening set, anyway, Mrs. Matthiessen may have vaulted into an exalted position as not just a new “This American Life” favorite, but a champion of decorum, a bane of dullness, a modern-day Miss Manners. We resolve to try to follow her lead at our own holiday table: We pledge not to bring up the red patch on our calf that may or may not be evidence of Lyme disease, and to leave out how we avoided a bottleneck on Main Street by slipping through the Reutershan parking lot. We promise not to even discuss how we can’t eat the stuffing because of gluten issues, either, because she is right: Nobody cares.

    East Hampton Town should not seek or accept additional funding from the Federal Aviation Administration until there is agreement on what strings would be attached.

    These conditions, or strings, could be significant. As best we understand it after listening to statements at hundreds of hours of meetings and reading and writing about airport battles for decades, there is a demonstrable, if slight, advantage if the town gets out from under the so-called grant assurances made in earlier deals with the F.A.A.

    After all the talk, it boils down to this: Without grant assurances, the town would have a marginally better chance of success in imposing curfews and other noise-curtailing measures than it would if it continued to take federal money. Take the money, and the town may be committed to negligible control and a more difficult process if it tries to set its own landing and takeoff rules. In either scenario, the law requires any actions the town takes to be “reasonable, non-arbitrary, and not unjustly discriminatory.” And, if a new rule goes into effect as expected, communities that have taken money from the F.A.A. may soon have an even greater hurdle to surmount.

    Pilots en masse appear to support further ties to Washington based on the fear that a future town board could close the airport altogether in the absence of a federal contract to the contrary. Their anxiety has been fanned by special interests, such as the Eastern Region Helicopter Council, which paid for a study that hyped the airport’s contribution to the local economy and further raised the specter of its being shut down. But this narrow view pits neighbors against resident aircraft owners, who are in effect acting as proxies for those who stand to profit from unfettered access — or those very fortunate few who prefer to arrive in their Gulfstreams at whatever hour of the day or night they please.

    Noise-control advocates have been painted unfairly as “airport opponents.” This is a convenient fiction based on the misperception that the Quiet Skies Coalition and others have a secret agenda. Sure, there may be one or two outliers for whom tearing up the tarmac sounds like a good idea, but the majority of residents here and in nearby towns would just like the airport to be less loud and its future growth limited. Unfortunately, by hardening their position, aviation interests may only be increasing the possibility of their own apocalyptic vision as community outrage rises.

    Airport policy cannot be held hostage by those who put profit or personal convenience ahead of the common good. Any measures, no matter how small, that can aid in the fight against noise should be welcomed by all.

    Rebates for the use of energy-efficient lighting are available, and more residents should know about and take advantage of them. The Long Island Power Authority offers several ways that those buying compact fluorescent or L.E.D. bulbs can save money, including a whole-house, bulk-buy incentive that ends on Dec. 31.

    LIPA and others have been pushing consumers to switch from traditional electricity-hungry incandescent lighting to the more expensive, but power-thrifty alternatives. Compact fluorescents, or C.F.L.s, use only a quarter of the electricity that the old bulbs do, and L.E.D.s less than that. About 90 percent of the energy emitted by regular bulbs is heat — which made the Easy Bake child’s oven possible and safe — but all that electricity has to come from somewhere, notably power plants linked to atmospheric pollution and global warming. The newer bulbs last longer, too, about 3 years for C.F.L.s left on five hours a day and around 15 years for L.E.D.s. You can get only about six months from an incandescent in the same use.

    The one downside of C.F.L.s is their disposal. They contain a small amount of mercury and should not be included in ordinary household trash. Some big-box retailers accept used bulbs for recycling, but for residents of the South Fork, getting to these locations is a bother. As we have urged before, officials should look into reasonable ways to provide safe disposal for them.

    Local retailers taking part in LIPA’s rebate program include the Ace Hardware stores in Montauk, East Hampton, and Sag Harbor, as well as the Revco outlets, and the Riverhead Home Depot. There are online sellers as well, including energyfederation.org/lipa, where you can key in your LIPA account number for instant savings. The new bulbs may take a little attention to figure out and purchase, but making the switch is well worth the effort.

    In a last-minute attempt to tarnish a Democratic-leaning organization, East Hampton Republicans recently sent a formal protest to the New York State Board of Elections about the East Hampton Conservators, a self-described political action committee founded by the actor Alec Baldwin, among others. While the timing of the complaint may have been part of October’s political warfare, the issue is serious and merits attention.

    The Republican letter to the state accused the Conservators of breaking the law by buying advertisements in this newspaper and others promoting specific candidates. The law requires such organizations as political parties and candidates’ campaign committees, which spend money in support of specific candidates, to comply with more detailed campaign finance reporting than political action committees.

    Nonaffiliated committees like the Conservators may give money to others to buy advertising, for example, but the minute they name a candidate in their own advertising it would appear that they can no longer follow the rules for PACs but the same requirements as traditional committees. In other words, organizations that spend money on behalf of specific candidates must file reports as if they were political committees. After the G.O.P. letter was made public, the Conservators said they would file the necessary paperwork stating their support of specific candidates.

    The complaint and the Conservators’ response raise the question of whether other groups, for example the East Hampton Aviation Association, which bought ad space here and elsewhere thanking Councilman Dominick Stanzione, who was running for re-election to the East Hampton Town Board, might also have had to meet the more stringent campaign finance requirements of political committees. Under the election law, it would appear that these groups, too, would have to do so if they cross the line.

    Without explicit direction from the state, however, it is difficult to say if the aviation association’s thank-you to Mr. Stanzione in the newspapers immediately preceding the election should have triggered these filing requirements. A lack of clarity in the rules makes it tricky to say just which groups should be submitting exactly what. Further guidance from state lawmakers may well be needed.