Two major public entities, the Town of East Hampton and the Montauk Fire Department, have found themselves touched by an alleged $96 million Ponzi scheme involving the Panoramic View Resort and Residences in Montauk. And, knowing what has now been alleged, Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota must take a close look at whether local officials might have acted improperly.

    Troubles at the Old Montauk Highway property have been known for some time, and the matter came to a head late last week with the arrest of two men, Brian R. Callahan and Adam J. Manson, who, federal authorities said, had swindled some 40 investors who were told they were buying into a stock fund when the money was used to pay off the Panoramic’s debt. The investors included the Montauk Fire Department.

    By its own account, the Fire Department did the right thing, quickly pulling out of the deal after suspicions arose. The department had put cash from its scholarship fund into the duo’s investment fund, but for reasons not yet explained, it took out at least $400,000 and shifted it into certificates of deposit.

    This came shortly after the department’s treasurer, Terri Gaines, was caught skimming about $500,000 from the department’s treasury for personal use and was arrested. She paid it back and was sentenced to three years in prison, but the public deserves an answer to why the Montauk department put so much money into the hands of a private investment fund so soon after it had been burned by Ms. Gaines. This brings into question the ongoing effectiveness of its financial oversight. East Hampton Town’s involvement is more complicated.

    At about the same time the Fire Department was getting involved, the Panoramic View began large-scale renovations that should have had painstaking town review. Instead, the Building Department issued permits for conversion of motel units to residences and other changes without routing the project to the Planning Department, planning board, and perhaps even the zoning board of appeals.

    In 2008, two town officials, Sylvia Overby, then the chairwoman of the planning board, and Tom Talmage, the town engineer, were alerted to the work going on at the Panoramic and went to have a look. They found renovations that far exceeded what had been described in town files. Speaking later, Ms. Overby, now a member of the town board, said massive changes had taken place but that approvals for the work “never came up through the correct channels.” The only town officials outside of the Building Department who considered any aspect of the conversion were members of the architectural review board, who had been asked to decide on some minor aesthetic changes.

    Underlying the problem for the Panoramic’s redevelopers was the fact that the land on which the resort sits is zoned residentially. That means that the motel could remain as it existed, but that plans for any alterations, even if they were less than a conversion or expansion, would, under the law, have to be submitted for site plan review, a process that could have gone on for years. Instead, the owners converted the motel into luxury residences (some still available for short-term rental), re-graded the landscape, and made other improvements without mandated review.

    Dan Adams, who in 2010 was the newly hired, get-tough town attorney, said he would look into the matter and stop work, if necessary. But he was ousted within months. At the same time, Tom Preiato, the acting top town building inspector, expressed a view favorable to the Panoramic, saying that only minimal oversight was needed.

    Why the Panoramic was allowed to avoid exhaustive review of its plans before approvals were handed out remains unknown. Nor is it known who made the Panoramic’s case in Town Hall. At a time when the recently arrested men were allegedly scrambling for money and trying to beat the clock on their debt, time was money. They had neither.

    How it was that East Hampton Town officials helped speed their way is something that must be brought to light. It is now up to current town officials and the district attorney to decide whether to launch their own investigations, which we believe are warranted. Where such large sums of money are concerned, as well as allegations of criminal activity, a hard look at Town Hall’s role can no longer be sidestepped.

   Sure, they may have been at the East Hampton Town-owned Duck Creek Farm near Three Mile Harbor to look at the art exhibited in a Parrish Art Museum Road Show on Saturday, but of equal and perhaps more long-lasting note was the reaction of many to the beautiful property itself.

    The event that evening was ostensibly for an installation by Sydney Albertini, a wildly inventive artist known for vaguely disturbing knit masks and body coverings. Her work was draw enough; easily more than 100 people milled about at any one time. But guests also marveled at the land and buildings, which had been the house and studio of John Little, who was among those in the first wave of 20th century Abstract-Expressionists to discover Springs. Drinks in hand, they combed the tidy lawn, cupping hands alongside eyes to peer into the two-story “half-house” built around 1795 for Jonathan Edwards. A knot of children sat at the base of a tall weeping willow having the kind of conversation impenetrable to adult ears. Others of the younger set played tag, darting in and out of the shrubbery.

    What was most remarkable about this was that the Parrish event was the first public use of the property since the town bought it with money from the community preservation fund at the end of 2004. It is terrific that the $2.5 million deal took place at all, but a shame that it took so long for it to be made ready for something the public can enjoy.

    Compared to other South Fork hamlets, Springs has only a few spaces suitable for gatherings, picnics, and learning a little about history. Ashawagh Hall, an important cultural center maintained by the Springs Improvement Society, is very heavily used, which proves the need for additional public places.

    To prepare for Ms. Albertini’s show, the town installed a plywood floor in the 1890 Gardiner barn which Mr. Little had moved onto the land in 1948, making it better suited for visitors on this and other occasions. We can envision acoustic music performances or poetry readings there, for example, and family reunions on the broad lawn.

    It was probably not simply accidental that a broadly smiling Town Councilman Dominick Stanzione, who was among those in attendance on Saturday, was the deciding vote this week to take another town property, Fort Pond House in Montauk, off the real estate market. It could not have been lost on him that, like the Amagansett Life-Saving Station, whose restoration has had his strong backing, smaller parks and public properties have a significant positive effect on residents’ and visitors’ quality of life.

    Duck Creek Farm is now a model of a sensible and needed public acquisition. At a time when attention is being focused on the $40 million (and growing) balance that has come into the East Hampton Town preservation fund from the real estate transfer tax, discussion must ensue about how to get residents aware of what assets the town already has and about moving speedily to buy more. At one time the Edwards fields extended over some 130 acres; today the remaining property contributes to an understanding of the post-colonial period when large, outlying farms were being established by the descendents of the original settlers.    

    All those involved, specifically town officials, Ms. Albertini, the Parrish Art Museum, the Duck Creek Farm Association, and the food and drink purveyors who were there, are to be congratulated for putting this triple treat — an important part of the town’s historic and artistic identity and a valuable common asset — back into the conversation.

    By the way, Ms. Albertini’s installation can be seen Friday through Sunday from noon to 5 p.m. until Sept. 2. Duck Creek Farm and the John Little House and Studio is off Three Mile Harbor-Hog Creek Road at its intersection with Squaw Road.

   One of the smartest analysies of the traffic problem — and much else — plaguing the South Fork this year that we have seen so far came from an interesting source. In our letters to the editor this week you can read for yourself a take on what has gone wrong from Judi Desiderio, who runs a successful real estate firm here. She placed much of the blame on the rise of the Web-enabled short-term housing boom. This, she argued, has led to a sharp increase in the number of cars on the roads, as well as an interesting side effect: greater and more frenetic activity as weekly (or shorter) renters rush to get it all in.

    To this we might add a couple of points: First, those who rent out rooms or illegally converted garage apartments or sheds, for example, are increasing the residential capacity of their properties. And, while taken singly, the additional beds may not seem like much, multiply them by 1,000 perhaps, and we have the makings of a big headache. Separately, we spoke off the record last week with one of the organizers of an East Hampton share house, who claimed ignorance of the law and said that the up-to-a-dozen vehicles often parked at the property, which neighbors have complained about, were just “guests” going to the beach.

    Ms. Desiderio likened the short-termers to a “brown tide,” evoking the algae blooms that can bring death to marine life in our harbors and bays — and she had a point. One gets the sense here that, banner house-sales notwithstanding, the summer population has exceeded what most residents want — as well as the ability of governments and emergency services to meet its needs. Something has to change, and targeting illegal, short-term rentals is a place to start.

   After putting up with years of annoyance, several East Hampton Town residents have begun organizing in an attempt to force elected officials to do something about noise from gas-powered leaf blowers. These activists can fairly speak on behalf of many others who are vexed by the racket from these machines, which are often used for everything from dusting driveways to drying rain-dampened sidewalks in front of shops. The campaign is overdue.

    One of the things that visitors notice when they arrive on the South Fork is how manicured our neighborhoods are. Thanks to an unending supply of low-cost immigrant labor and powerful devices such as blowers, taking care of lawns and gardens has become one of the area’s largest industries. As such, the ban-the-blowers crowd, apparently made up of your average homeowners, may stand little chance of prevailing. It is not surprising that officials would be apt to sympathize with the landscapers, many of whom say blowers are essential. Work can be done with electric blowers, of course, or brooms and rakes, but the louder gasoline blowers seem to be key to quick turnaround on jobs — and better profit margins than would be achieved without ear-splitting mechanization.

    In addition to noise, the organizers of the nascent movement have said that air quality can be compromised as blowers whip up chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and mold, among other substances, and that the emissions from the gas-powered devices can be far worse than from a motor vehicle operated for an equal length of time. We worry, too, about the hearing damage the blowers may be doing to the many workers we see without ear protection, workers who are likely not to have health insurance, and who would hesitate if they are in the country without proper documentation to seek help. In such cases, there appears to be a social justice dimension to the devices’ use.

    One place to start would be for the towns and villages to phase out their commercial-equipment exemptions on noise limits. There is precedent for strict measures, too: The Village of Southampton does not allow the use of blowers from Memorial Day to Labor Day, and the City of Yonkers, bans them from June 1 to Sept. 30. Similar rules are in place in at least 16 other New York municipalities alone, suggesting that it would be possible to take action here. While the activists are at it, they should press for state or county regulations requiring hearing protection for those who use them.

    Lawn-care company owners are going to seek the most cost-effective way to get the job done; that’s just smart business. It is up to the community to guide them toward doing so in a manner that does not also destroy the peace and quiet.

   The thing about the suddenly renewed discussion about trucks parked on bathing beaches is that 15 or 20 years ago East Hampton residents would not have been having this debate. But we are, and it is a symptom of an ever-growing summer population that even simple pleasures are now points of friction. Resolving the conflict is the job of town officials, who for the most part, have failed to show leadership in this regard.

     As recently as five years back, there were hardly ever any vehicles parked on a now-disputed sliver of sand on the east side of the Three Mile Harbor inlet. Now, on a sunny summer afternoon, trucks line up almost door-to-door after backing down from a paved access road. On Saturday, we saw a pickup truck left parallel to the waterline of the quiet cove, and at dead center. Four people sat nearby in beach chairs at the water’s edge as if they owned the place. For those who oppose vehicles on the beaches, it is a visual and practical blight; for those who like their four-by-fours, it is a cherished right. 

    Many Americans have a peculiarly powerful relationship with their modes of transportation. Those who suggest that trucks might not belong on a narrow, easily accessible section of waterfront like this and who might argue that new beach limits are in order are sometimes treated as if they are attacking mom, apple pie, and the flag. For those who conflate their sense of identity with what they drive, this can be taken as a personal affront.

    The reason some vehicle owners plunk their rigs on the beaches is because they like to: It is pleasant and convenient to drive picnics, chairs, coolers, paddleboards, and what have you right where you want them. To these beholders at least, there is nothing wrong or unsightly about the rows of trucks at the kid-friendly wading spot known as “baby beach” at Three Mile Harbor, or at Little Albert’s Landing in Amagansett, “truck beach” on the ocean on Napeague, or the town nature preserve off East Lake Drive, Montauk.

    Yet to the non-car-loving eye, vehicles on the beaches are nuisances that create deep tracks, cause environmental damage, and take up space that would otherwise be used by people. At the disputed Three Mile Harbor site, some people have begun to bring up safety concerns, pointing out that baby beach is not an appropriate place for motorized fun.

    Politicians, assuming that the four-wheeler crowd is a powerful November voting bloc, are loathe to upset them, which means that East Hampton Town continues to hand out free, good-for-the-life-of-the-vehicle beach-driving permits, and, therefore, as the population rises, there will be even more trucks on the beaches, not fewer. Beach-driving advocates, fearing a domino effect, are unlikely to see baby beach as an appropriate place to relax their all-or-nothing stance.

    The East Hampton Town Trustees, who run most of the town’s beaches, seem to perceive only the tradition of beach driving, collectively failing to see beyond this position when they should be objectively weighing the pros and cons on behalf of all residents. As to the East Hampton Town Board, the current group can hardly agree on how to screw in a lightbulb so we cannot expect any resolution to such a loaded issue there.

    There are places where vehicles on the beach during swimming season may be okay, such as at Little Albert’s in Amagansett and perhaps in limited numbers on Napeague, but aside from access for the disabled, there is no convincing argument for the continued use of baby beach at Three Mile Harbor by four-wheelers, nor, frankly, for trucks on the sand along the channel, when there is ample and easy parking a few steps away. A slippery slope it is not; common sense and respect for others it is.

    Many of us would like to turn back the clock to a less crowded decade, when we could drive where we wanted and do more or less what we liked. But try as we might, we cannot wave that magic wand. Neither can elected officials continue to hide in the shadows of political expediency, pretending that times have not changed and that some restrictions are not inevitable.

   Consider if you will what East Hamptoners are saying about the state of things circa 2103. Looking over this week’s crop of letters to the editor and reading accounts of recent Demo­cratic Party “listen-ins,” we are struck by an overarching theme: The town seems out of control and no one in authority appears to be doing anything about it.

    Since about the beginning of the year, The Star has had a series of editorials noting some of the topics candidates for town office in November should be talking about. These have included planning for sea-level rise, repairing ineffective town departments, restoring even-handed rules of law, and leveling with voters about chronic budget underfunding. To that list, we now add quality of life. 

    The subjects may be familiar, but that does not mean that the concerns of ordinary people — or even party activists — can be dismissed. According to an apparent majority of those speaking out, there is plenty worth complaining about. Take, for example, noise in general, noisy leaf blowers, illegally overcrowded houses, the expansion of nighttime watering holes, traffic, the airport, Montauk’s going to hell in a handbasket, and even the cost of doughnuts. With a few of next week’s letters to the editor already in hand, we can safely say the theme continues.

    Larry Cantwell, the presumptive next town supervisor, and the other members of the next board will have their work cut out for them after years of neglect. If they need a to-do list, our letters pages could suffice. The sooner the candidates start really talking about how to set things to right, what it will cost, and how to restore law and order and peace and quiet, the easier the task will be

   Now in its second season, the Montauk Beach House, a hotel, bar, and music venue, remains in the news for good reason: How the modest former Ronjo Motel turned into a far larger business complex with only the barest of planning review is a key question for East Hampton Town officials — and the electorate.

    The Beach House is hardly the only example of a land-use and zoning process run off the rails in town. Cyril’s Fish House on Napeague, where patrons and taxis use the state right of way as if it were private property, has been allowed to operate a restaurant and bar despite numerous citations. The Inn at Windmill Lane in Amagansett has been allowed to expand twice, including into a historic district building, without the required site plan review. The Panoramic View in Montauk was converted and expanded without authorization from the town planning board. And it was only under pressure that town officials reversed their position on the Dunes, a high-priced alcohol and drug rehabilitation facility in Northwest Woods, which apparently was operating illegally on a parcel zoned for residences. Don’t try any of this at home, however; in each case the operators were well-connected, extremely well-funded, or both.

    Town officials, notably the top building inspector, Tom Preiato, are beginning to take a tougher, if overdue, line on the Beach House. When the property was the threadbare Ronjo, it boasted 33 rooms and few other amenities. Now, after a multimillion-dollar renovation, the Beach House has only 32 rooms, but it has an outdoor bar, a cafe, clothing boutique, membership pool club, and live music acts and D.J.s, which pull in, by even the owners’ cautious statements, as many as 300 to 400 people a day.

    The conundrum at the Beach House is that it occupies a site where these uses are prohibited under present zoning. It doesn’t even have a town music permit. The Ronjo was allowed to persist as a nonconforming use because it pre-existed zoning. Under the town code, however, any expansion whatsoever is supposed to be subject to strict review. Nor has the Beach House’s vastly expanded operation triggered the town’s parking calculation, by which it would either have had to provide ample spaces for its patrons or pay into a fund earmarked for that purpose.

    This all appears to have been made possible by a compliant Town Hall, which has looked past these issues and the fact that the place doesn’t even have a valid certificate of occupancy, without which it should not have opened its doors. There has even been an allegation of what might be called witness-tampering, in which someone with knowledge of the entertainment at the Beach House was dissuaded from speaking at a town planning board hearing.

    You can be sure that other East Hampton Town motel or resort business owners are watching closely to see how far the Beach House owners can push things. It would be a lucrative precedent if its expansion were allowed to stand. Conversely, those concerned with how the town enforces its zoning laws, quality of life issues, parking, traffic, and noise should be demanding a stronger hand. This gets at a fundamental question about who town government is for: residents or those who just want to make a buck. No one, no matter how well they are able to play the system to their advantage, should be above the law.

   The juxtaposition could not be more stark: East Hampton Town does not take adequate care of the public bathing beaches it already has and yet town officials appear to be thinking seriously about adding more. We say, not so fast. A little housekeeping and assumption-checking needs to occur first.

    A report completed earlier this month by the town’s nature preserve committee identified possible locations for a new full-service bathing beach with lifeguards, parking, and restrooms. The top choices were two sites on Napeague, one a 37-acre preserve near Dolphin Drive and the other a 6.7-acre rectangle about a half-mile to the east.

    Before the town moves forward with plans to develop either of these parcels, it has some thinking to do. For starters, cleanliness is not optional. The town already appears to be in repeated violation of Suffolk health regulations that require “adequate” and “sanitary” means of storing and disposing of garbage at beaches. Overflowing trash barrels and cascading mounds of refuse left in parking lots cannot reasonably be seen as anything other than lack of compliance with the law.

     At the same time, and perhaps more important, it must look dispassionately at the numbers of people using protected beaches and consider ways to do something about crowding at them. To a significant degree, the problem is not space on the sand itself, but lack of adequate parking, bike lanes, and public transportation.

    East Hampton’s strands are not as constrained as they may be in other places; sunbathers can find places to stretch out away from the throngs. The town should find out whether bathers at protected beaches ever exceed the maximum number set by the County Health Department. If the answer is no, as we believe it likely to be, improving access to existing beaches is the logical move.

    Although some members of the town’s lifeguard squad have expressed significant concern that crowding could drive some swimmers to more remote locations, beyond the watchful gaze of guards, the parking lots at most town beaches can be expanded, and then, if warranted, additional lifeguards assigned and restrooms put up. 

    As for Indian Wells in Amagansett, huge gatherings of young, beer-swilling singles on weekend afternoons have become a problem in part because of the town’s anything-goes policy on public alcohol consumption. It remains to be seen whether the town’s attempt to limit transient vehicular access there is effective.  

    Before the public gets behind a plan to open new ocean or bay bathing beaches, the town must demonstrate that it can adequately pick up trash and maintain order at the ones it already has. Before significant resources are spent on new beaches, the town should try to solve the obvious parking crunch and ban drinking alcohol at beaches with lifeguards. These would be less costly and much more expedient first steps.

   New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has the right idea about sea-level rise, global warming, and the threat of catastrophic storms. East Hampton Town, and to a similar degree other local governments, have so far pretended these problems do not exist, although they may simply be paralyzed by their enormity. The discrepancy, however, is startling.

    Last week, Mr. Bloomberg announced an expensive and ambitious plan to protect the city, drafted in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Long Island’s South Fork towns and villages should also be leading the way on preparations and planning for what appears inevitable for coastal communities, but they are not.

    To get an idea of what our officials should be doing, it is illustrative to look at what the City of New York has been up to. As soon as 2020, city planners said in a recent report, annual average temperatures could increase by three degrees, with a 10-percent jump in rainfall. Sea level around the city could rise more than two feet by the middle of the century, and as many as 800,000 people could soon be living in 100-year flood plains, the report said.

    Vital in the city’s response — and that of the East End towns and villages — will be protecting houses and infrastructure, such as electricity, fuel supplies, and transportation routes. The city’s report contains 250 specific recommendations, including flood walls, levees, and new dune and wetland systems. Early estimates are that the full project would cost at least $20 billion. Money would be made available for the owners of private properties to improve foundations, reinforce walls, and move mechanical equipment out of surge plains. Also included are suggestions about how to assure food supplies, functioning utilities, and health care.

    As Hurricane Sandy showed, the difficulties largely came in the storm’s aftermath — even here, more than 100 miles from where its eye made landfall. For towns like East Hampton, where beaches are key to the dominant second-home economy, saving houses must be balanced with preserving beaches. So far the scales have been tipped too far toward waterfront property owners at the expense of public access, and ad-hoc solutions have been discussed in the absence of an overall plan. East Hampton Town officials have gone one step further, essentially agreeing to toss out the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, which was the result of years of careful study.

    At a national level, Congress and the White House must increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help improve its flood maps and provide incentives and aid to those municipalities and homeowners unable to afford adequate preparation. Equally important, Washington must do more to address greenhouse gas emissions, a primary cause of sea-level rise and climate change. Without a two-pronged approach — smart anticipatory steps and cutting carbon dioxide and other pollutants — coastal areas such as our own will be among the first to suffer.

   Sag Harbor voters will choose a mayor and two board members on Tuesday at a pivotal time for the village. 

   Four candidates are vying for mayor: the two-term incumbent, Brian Gilbride, Pierce Hance, who held the post in the 1990s, Sandra Schroeder, who was the village clerk for many years, and Bruce Tait, the chairman of the village’s harbor committee. For us, the choice comes down to Mr. Hance or Mr. Tait; Mr. Gilbride has been too divisive a figure to stay on.

      The core issue is the police force and whether to keep it, eliminate it, or cut it back to a few officers backed by patrols from a neighboring town or county force. Shutting down the force has been among Mayor Gilbride’s top concerns, ostensibly over its cost to taxpayers and stalled contract deal. Mr. Hance has said his experience with a prior police negotiation over money would have avoided the present bitter stalemate. Mr. Tait has expressed support for the department, saying essentially it needs enough officers to do the job.

      Another matter on which Mr. Hance has spoken out is open government. Under Mayor Gilbride’s watch (with the mute and puzzling acquiescence of State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., who moonlights, inappropriately in our view, as the village attorney), meetings have repeatedly been held that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the New York Open Meetings Law. This disdain for public process is unwelcome.

    Four men are running for two places on the Village Board, including two who previously held village elected positions, Ed Deyermond and Bruce Stafford, and an incumbent, Ed Gregory. For their role in allowing the police matter to get out of hand and in excluding village residents from observing key decisions, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Stafford should not be returned. This leaves Mr. Deyermond, who has considerable government experience as a South­ampton Town assessor and Sag Harbor mayor, among other roles, and Ken O’Donnell, a business owner, as better candidates.

    The mayoral choice, between Mr. Hance and Mr. Tait, is a difficult one, but the edge goes to the latter for his nonconfrontational demeanor and longstanding interest in the environment, community, and waterfront.