Andrew Revkin, a former science and environment reporter for The New York Times who now blogs on nytimes.com, this week lauded the handful of downtown East Hampton Village businesses that had their doors closed on a recent hot summer day, but he called out with displeasure the many other shops whose air-conditioning was pouring out onto the street. A letter-writer in these pages this week also decried the bad habit of some retailers, calling the waste of the electricity needed to power all the cooling “shameful.”

    New York City banned icy-blast come-ons in the hot August of 2008, as Mr. Revkin pointed out. The question came up in East Hampton Village before, but for whatever reason the trustees decided to take no steps. As long ago as 2006, the Long Island Power Authority made news about this, calculating in a survey that 65 percent of East Hampton shopkeepers had air-conditioners running with doors open — the highest percentage on Long Island.

    For the record, when the air-conditioning is on, we at The Star keep the doors and windows closed tight, as do the very successful London Jewelers, BookHampton, and Starbucks, according to Mr. Revkin. If other businesses cannot manage to do what’s right, the village must step in and make it the law.

   Locals say it every summer: They have never, ever seen it so crowded. Only this year, the summer of 2013, we think they really mean it.

    From the beaches to the main streets and back roads, people are everywhere. A friend in Montauk asked us last weekend whether there was anyone left in East Hampton since it seemed everybody was there. Someone in Amagansett quipped at a citizens advisory meeting that her hamlet was turning into Montauk, what with the share-house crowds, noise, litter, and all. Someone else of our acquaintance said her strategy, like that of so many people who live here, was to just stay home, a workable idea, perhaps, but it really should not — does not — have to be this way.

    About a decade ago, East Hampton Town began the painstaking process of updating its comprehensive plan, an overall vision document on which to base land-use and regulatory decisions. The time may have come for an overarching update to the update, so to speak, specifically looking at the town’s carrying capacity in terms of infrastructure, drinking water, quality-of-life concerns, and public safety.

    Such an undertaking, though necessary, would find only minority support among those now on the town board. When it comes down to it in most matters, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, and Councilman Dominick Stanzione come down on the side of monetary considerations. Each has expressed (either outright or in the voting record) a sense that if something is making money it is good for the town. That may be a contentious assertion, but it has held the day time and again on Pantigo Road.

    In recent years, Town Hall has sided with those promising to bring in the greenbacks over the concerns of residents. Just consider the collapse of residential overcrowding rules and the board’s recent backing of last-minute and intrusive commercial gatherings, for example, and, more generally, the unregulated and presumably illegal expansion of various once-small restaurants and bars into horde-magnets.

    Suffice it to say, the majority of residents and taxpayers chose to live here not because it was a good place to make a fast buck, but because they loved all that made East Hampton a beautiful place. It is up to our elected officials to recognize this and begin to shift the balance back. Asking the fundamental questions — what do we want this community to be and how do we get there — will be critical.

   Many New Yorkers, whose state was among those in recent years that turned a long-overdue gender-blind eye on marriage, rightly celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision last week on the Defense of Marriage Act. Locally, we were pleased to learn that the plaintiff in this landmark case was a part-time Southampton resident, Edith Windsor.

    On a smaller scale, but also of major significance, at least for the South Fork, is the opening this month in Sag Harbor of the area’s first support and social center for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young people.

    As society as a whole moves toward greater acceptance of its gay members, concern about students in the middle and high school years has lagged behind, according to many accounts. This has been true here.

    David Hernandez’s tragic decision to commit suicide last year was prompted, at least in part, by bullying by his peers about his sexual orientation. And on an even smaller scale, harassment and lack of empathy for those who are perceived as different is routine, according to many parents. The new G.L.B.T. center, to be housed at the Old Whalers Church, will give young people like David a place to turn, to find encouraging people who say it is okay to be who you are.

    Until the center opens in mid-July, the nearest similar refuge is in Bay Shore — an impossible distance for many of the kids who might need it. Those involved in getting the South Fork facility going are to be heartily congratulated, as is the church for hosting it.

    All of our children, no matter what path they travel toward adulthood, must be assisted and nurtured along the way.

   Doesn’t anyone in East Hampton Town Hall do his or her homework? That is a fair question given the disregard for protected farmland that has become apparent recently.

    The latest incident arose when someone belatedly realized that the town had, almost a decade ago, bought the development rights to the acreage on which parking was planned for as many as 3,900 guests at the Shark Attack Sounds dance party tomorrow night at the Montauk Yacht Club. The 2004 purchase blocked the land’s use for anything other than agriculture, including parking. This is very much like the debacle last summer in which the town decided to convert several acres of county-protected farm fields in East Hampton to a road drainage sump. The project remains unfinished, and the resulting dispute with Suffolk officials unresolved. As with the earlier example, there is evidence that certain town officials were made aware of the restrictions on the site but chose to ignore them.

    With only a day to go until the Montauk event is to begin, it is irresponsible that a majority of the town board appeared poised to okay an alternative parking arrangement — one that police and emergency responders would not have had adequate time to review. If there ever was a time to call the party off, that time is now.

   On a busy summer’s day, our local ambulance squads respond to an ever-increasing number of calls. Some of the emergencies they rush to are just that — matters of life and death. Other calls are less urgent, but the responders treat everyone with the utmost care. These volunteers are exemplary citizens, each having undergone dozens, if not hundreds, of hours’ training and refresher courses, as well as having devoted long periods of time to taking care of gear and answering calls.

    To meet the demands of summer, emergency service providers on the South Fork are increasingly looking toward supplementing to some degree their ambulance companies with paid staff. Though there has been traditional resistance from among the otherwise all-volunteer fire departments, to which ambulance squads belong, the writing appears to be on the wall that more help is needed. The Montauk department has for the first time taken on paid paramedics; Southampton did so some time ago. Other fire districts are relying on the system of mutual aid, in which a department unable to raise a crew calls on its neighbors.

    This system is not flawless. Patients may have to endure long waits for transportation to Southampton Hospital when their home district’s ambulances are out on other calls. Police are generally first on the scene and can provide oxygen and automatic emergency defibrillators, but there is no substitute for trained medical help and hospitalization within short order when required. Acknowledging that traditions can be hard to change, it is important that the fire districts and ambulance personnel take a dispassionate look at response times and consider whether the time has come for some full-time paid assistance.

    Residents and visitors can help in several ways as well. One is to avoid calling 911 for nonemergency injuries and ailments that could be treated in one of the area’s walk-in clinics. Landlords who rent to people from away should be sure to explain this to their tenants and provide the addresses and phone numbers of places to go for immediate care. On the roads, drivers must pay attention to the lights and sirens as ambulances approach, pulling to the shoulder in both directions to help them pass. Drivers should also be aware that the flashing green or blue lights on private vehicles indicate a volunteer on his or her way to an emergency, and get out of the way.

    Lastly, bicyclists could be a little smarter by always wearing a helmet, swimmers could limit themselves to where a lifeguard is on duty and avoid diving head-first into unknown waters. And all of us can try to eat right and exercise more to stay fit. Help, especially in the summer, can be a long time away, so everything you can do keep safe and help ambulanced crews on their way is welcome.

   There are perhaps hundreds of people engaged in the South Fork’s underground housing economy, at least if the online listings on Craigslist, Airbnb, and others are to be believed. An interesting account appeared in this newspaper last week about the now-ubiquitous short-term rental, in which landlords charge hundreds of dollars a night for temporary stays, turning ordinary houses on streets much like yours, no doubt, into hotels or motels, for all intents and purposes. What is baffling is why it is all so out in the open, despite local regulations barring the practice. The same question arises with summer share houses, which have flourished in the digital age.

    One might ask, who does it hurt? Well, legitimate hotel owners, for one, who pay a 3-percent room tax to Suffolk County for above-board accommodations. Those in short-term rentals could find themselves in accommodations that are less than safe, though the occupants of legal month or two-month rentals, at least in East Hampton, could find themselves in the same situation. In a community already bursting to overflowing — and with its comprehensive plan unambiguously calling for limits to growth — the sky should not be the limit where total numbers of visitors are concerned.

    In East Hampton Town, property owners are allowed no more than two rentals for less than two weeks in a single six-month period. It would hardly be difficult for town officials to send a polite e-mail reminder to those whose online booking calendars suggest they may be breaking the law. Heck, it would take a decent intern half a day to get the word out to a couple hundred with dodgy listings.

    That the Ordinance Enforcement Department does not pay this any attention is either indifference or orders from above to look the other way. Whatever the reason, it is wrong and makes our town code appear to be optional. A little enforcement of the laws already on the books would help make the town a saner and safer place to spend the summer. Reining in illegal rentals and overcrowded shares would be a good way to start.

   By a strict party-line vote, the East Hampton Town Board approved a giant party called Shark Attack Sounds for the Fourth of July weekend in Montauk despite obvious concerns that the event had grown too large to be held either at its original location on East Lake Drive or at the Montauk Yacht Club.     

    Several thousand people attended this party last year, and this time around, Ben Watts, the promoter, asked the town for permission to host as many as 3,900 paying guests in an application that became public only at the last possible minute. What is astonishing is that Town Hall received the permit application on June 3, although you can be sure the event was planned long before that, and that it came to light only a little more than a week ago when it was mumbled onto the town board’s agenda by Supervisor Bill Wilkinson.

    Councilman Dominick Stanzione, who is seeking re-election in November, cast the decisive vote in favor of the application. He and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley joined the supervisor, Republicans, in supporting the party. The board’s two Democrats voted against it.

    In 2012, when town officials shut down Shark Attack Sounds for exceeding its 800-person permit, chaos ensued. Hundreds of vehicles took off bumper-to-bumper as revelers looked to continue the party elsewhere. This year, in a compromise, the promoters will turn off the music at 11 p.m., although the mass exodus will essentially be duplicated as thousands of guests queue up to take buses back to remotely parked vehicles — or climb into the likely horde of mostly non-local taxis drawn by the opportunity to charge exorbitant fares.

    You can expect Rushmeyer’s, the Surf Lodge, Beach House, and Montauk’s other nightspots to enjoy a healthy boost of business — while neighbors cope with noise and litter — as the party moves onward and outward. This could be one reason why the Republicans, who seem eager to help Montauk’s burgeoning nightlife venues at every turn, voted yes. Meanwhile, in a separate, but related, matter, the board seems ready to approve new regulations that would make enforcement of noise complaints nearly impossible.

    You couldn’t pick a worse place or time for an event of this size. Star Island, where the Montauk Yacht Club is located, is accessed over a narrow causeway that feeds into what is at best a secondary road. On the Fourth of July weekend, police and emergency responders have more than enough to deal with without a bacchanal that will draw additional thousands to the area. And for what? So a horde of young adults can get together to drink and have fun while an out-of-town, part-time promoter makes a few bucks for himself and the yacht club’s corporate ownership? There are several other marinas on the island, and a private residence, and to top things off, the United States Coast Guard Station, which is just up the road, would almost certainly see its access disrupted during the event. 

    The town board would have been well within its rights to deny the permit because the application contained what appears to be “materially false information.” It stated that the party was to be in part a benefit for the Montauk Playhouse, but it now appears that the community center’s representatives were never approached about it. The application had been made in time, at least 30 days before the party, but due to the town’s routing system, in which the paperwork is first viewed by the Police Department and others, the town board did not learn about it until the last minute. Even then, Mr. Wilkinson appeared to obfuscate the request, failing to describe exactly who was seeking the permit and for what when scheduling a public hearing.

    All of this gets, once again, right to the heart of East Hampton’s identity: Is our town government of and for its residents or not? Are we — and the powers that be — just in it for the money or do we care about where we live and want to keep it a certain way? It is unfair that anyone’s peaceful enjoyment of their house, yard, or summer rental is impinged on? Yes, we live in what is largely a resort area, but that does not give commercial interests, or, dare we mention, the pilots of helicopters and jets the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want? Protecting neighborhoods from unwarranted assaults is, in fact, enshrined in the East Hampton Town Code.

    We suspect we are not alone in thinking that the balance has tipped too far in favor of those who want to extract what cash they can here without regard for anything or anyone else. It is a pity that they have found such willing and consistent supporters among those on the town board.

   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.