At East Hampton Town Hall these days, when you think you have seen it all, someone down there on Pantigo Road goes and does something really unexpected. This time it involves a dead whale, heavy equipment, and who pays the bill.

    When a 58-foot-long dead finback washed up on the Napeague beach on Jan. 13, it was a minor sensation. Crowds came for a look; the Riverhead Foundation red-jackets swooped in to give the leviathan a final exam. Then, Town Hall decided to have the fetid mass of bone and blubber cut up and carted away. Problem is, the $7,500 bill ended up being handed to the East Hampton Town Trustees, even though the trustees, a separate elected body, had apparently not been consulted about disposing the whale. The trustees were predictably surprised and upset.

    This comes at a moment when the trustees have brought suit against the town zoning board, seeking to reverse approval of a Lazy Point sea wall, which was backed by one of East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson’s closest political cronies. Could sending the bill to the trustees be payback? Ya think?

   “Just hang in there, kiddo” was the parting shot from Supervisor Bill Wilkinson to wrap up a sharp-toned exchange with Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc at last Thursday’s East Hampton Town Board meeting. Unfortunately, this kind of puerile jab is all too frequent among the town’s elected leaders.

    Much of the blame must be placed with the acerbic Mr. Wilkinson, who sets the tone as the board’s titular head. But he is far from alone in pointless, time-wasting ire. His ally on the board, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, is no stranger to pointed barbs and facile dismissals, and the pair find eager sparring partners in Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and Councilman Van Scoyoc. To his credit, Councilman Dominick Stanzione appears to have supped from a different cup, rarely joining the fray — even in the face of direct affronts from Mr. Wilkinson or members of the public.

    True to form, on Tuesday, the bickering got out of hand. “I feel as if I’m in high school,” Councilwoman Overby said, to which Councilwoman Quigley responded, “I feel as if I’m in grammar school because that’s your level of intellect.”

    This may be good theater for town board watchers, but all the agita has real-world consequences. Absent basic courtesy among elected officials of the sort we were all supposedly taught as children, the town as a whole has suffered. Prospects for progress on even the most mundane issues is minimized. It is fair to say that if the board cannot resolve routine matters in a peaceable and effective way, there is little hope for resolution on truly difficult problems like East Hampton Airport, erosion, climate change, and water quality.

    As the local political committees narrow down their choices for the important town posts in play in the November election, they must put civility at the top of their list of qualifications. Much, if not all, of the rest will flow from the next town board’s willingness to work together.

   East Hampton Village appears to be getting serious about new rules for dogs on its ocean beaches. This difficult undertaking is, unfortunately, overdue as previous efforts, both by officials and dog lovers, have proven inadequate. Strong feelings are likely to meet any plan to tighten regulations, but as the use of the beaches increases, how they are used and by what species must be reconsidered.

    Board members were surprised and perhaps shocked at a meeting last Thursday to learn that the village’s dog ordinance is among the least restrictive on the East End. Dogs are allowed on the beach during the summer months until 9 in the morning and after 6 at night, and they are welcome at any time of day from Sept. 30 to the second Sunday in May.

    East Hampton Village’s easygoing rules about animals on the beaches contrast sharply with those of Greenport, which ban them altogether, and Shelter Island, which ban them at all hours from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Among local governments here, only East Hampton Town is generally less restrictive than the village.

    The problems with dogs on the sand are twofold: They disturb beachgoers and leave little gifts behind. While plastic bags designed to ease the collection of dog droppings work to some degree, encounters with piles of feces that have not been collected or were made out of a dog owner’s line of vision are all too common.

    Though fines can be levied against those who fail to pick up after their pets, stationing sharp-eyed law enforcers at the beaches to catch the guilty would be a waste of resources, especially at a time when, for example, parents are asking for greater police presence at the schools.

    As to urine, there is nothing that can be done about that; a dog’s going to go where a dog’s going to go — including on beach towels, fishing gear, and lifeguard stands. People aren’t allowed to pee and poop where sunbathers will shortly stretch out. Why should dogs be granted that luxury?

    There is little short of a requirement that dogs remain on a leash at all times to deal with the fact that they can disrupt the enjoyment of beachgoers. Forget about an evening picnic with children; at any of the popular beaches, a dog or two is guaranteed to come sniffing around. Even a simple beach stroll can become nerve-wracking. People unfamiliar with dogs can mistake their friendly gamboling over to say hello as a threat.

    We are sorry that the time seems to have come for a 24-hour ban on dogs on village beaches during the swimming and sunbathing season — as well as at the most popular town beaches — from, say, the middle of May through Columbus Day. Dogs already are prohibited at the downtown Montauk ocean beaches and at Ditch Plain in the summer, so precedent is there. On a trial basis, man’s best friends could be allowed on the sands in the off-season, with the explicit warning to owners that better clean-up and control of their pets is a must.

   Finally someone in authority, in this case, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, is talking sense about rebuilding storm-damaged properties in New York City and on Long Island. In a meeting in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Gov. Cuomo outlined his idea that as much as $400 million of Hurricane Sandy federal aid be set aside for buying flood-zone houses made unlivable, knocking them down, and leaving the properties vacant. The concept is a welcome antidote to the rebuild-at-any-cost approach, and, if carried through, would save money — and lives.

    The measure outlined by the governor would involve paying full, pre-Sandy market value to the owners of affected properties, with a 10-percent incentive for those in highest-risk zones.

    Some 130 people died in the New York area during Sandy. Eliminating residences and some infrastructure in the most vulnerable areas could reduce the number of fatalities in future storms. Though the desire to return to wrecked houses may be strong, there are likely to be some homeowners for whom a cash offer would make sense. Public officials have an obligation to protect the public to the greatest degree possible; helping people get out of harm’s way is part of that responsibility.

    Then there is the question of cost. Long-term, the price of continually restoring roads or replacing sand becomes the nation’s taxpayers’ problem, along with other projects the federal flood insurance program agrees to pay for. People across the country subsidize the vacation houses of the rich in the Hamptons, and support businesses, such as hotels, whose local give-back in terms of verifiable dollars and community enhancement is questionable. Up to 98 percent of the East Coast’s oceanfront property, according to one study, is said to be in “absentee ownership,” that is, only marginally occupied or held as an investment. Should people in the heartland have to ante up to keep it this way? Mr. Cuomo and others say no.

    As to the environment, trying to hold the shoreline in place results in devastation in the form of lost ecosystems, as can be seen at East Hampton’s Georgica Beach and in many places on north and east-facing shorelines. Sea walls and the like in locations where erosion is ongoing inevitably result in the loss of natural beaches. Costly sand replenishment — as was recently approved by residents of a special tax district in Sagaponack and Bridgehampton and is under consideration in Montauk — is not necessarily sustainable over the long term without outside funding.

    Governor Cuomo has made it clear that state and local officials have to be smart about federal money, asking themselves — and the best available experts — what mitigation and protection really mean and for whom and in whose interest public money should be spent.

   Pretty much everyone who follows such things has noticed by now the starkly uneven way East Hampton Town’s building and zoning laws are applied, particularly when it comes to Montauk. How you are treated apparently depends on who you know — and how deep your pockets are. And right now there is probably no sharper contrast than that involving the Beach House hotel-slash-club and the Montauk Brewing Company.

    The beer-makers, three local men who have been friends since their years at East Hampton High School, have asked the town for permission to convert an existing barn behind their tasting room into a proper brewery; up to now, they have made the beer elsewhere. Going through the review process the right way, they have run up against the town’s off-street parking requirement, by which it has been calculated they would have to pay the town a substantial fee, instead of providing spaces for three or so vehicles on their modest lot. With no room for parking, the cost would be a substantial burden on the start-up business. The year-round brewers are considering their options and may ask the town board to allow them to make the payment over time or to change the parking rules.

    On the other side of Montauk’s main drag, the very seasonal Beach House was expanded last winter and spring without the obviously required prerequisite of full planning board review. As a result, the one-time basic motel became something else altogether and now includes a daytime membership pool club, full bar, nightclub with live acts (but not the required music permit), an on-premise space lately occupied by a fashion boutique, and a gift shop — all without a code-mandated planning decision.

    And how many parking spaces did the owners of the high-end hotel and party spot have to ante up for? None. That’s right, not one. Because the Beach House was able to skirt nearly all review, the parking requirements never came up.

    The difference between the way that the Beach House, a well-funded operation, and the brewery, a do-it-yourself undertaking, have been treated demonstrates just how prone to outside influence town government has become. At least two of the town’s Republican leaders — Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilman Dominick Stanzione — attended the Beach House’s grand opening, making it clear that the project had their backing even though questions were already swirling about its legality. This was also well after the supervisor pushed for a deal in which the town sold the Beach House a strip of public land that, in effect, made the whole thing possible — and at a price, according to records we have seen, named by the Beach House rather than picked out of the air, as Mr. Wilkinson had claimed. Later, it was only when pressured into doing something about the renovations by some outside government that the town building inspector sent a letter to the hotel’s owners politely asking what their intentions were.

    The Beach House’s representatives appeared in front of the town zoning board of appeals this week on the narrow issues of whether the bar and retail conversion could remain without permits. This is an obvious smokescreen that obscures the key question of how the expensive renovation and plain-as-day change of use from what was a modest, pre-existing, nonconforming motel could have been allowed to happen in the first place without a stringent examination of plans — and their impact on parking in downtown Montauk —  before it broke ground.

    Meanwhile, the Montauk Brewing Company partners continue to pursue their goals by the book, as they have for more than two years, seeking proper approvals for their expansion. Unfortunately they may end up paying dearly for their willingness to follow the letter of the law.

    The least the Beach House owners could do to make amends is offer to carry the brewery’s excellent ales and porters on its illegal bar’s taps. Of course, no dummies, they probably already have.

    The rest of us should demand that Town Hall get its act together and at the very least apply the law in a fair manner.

   In years past, it was the Town of East Hampton that led the way among local governments in providing affordable, or so-called work-force, housing for its residents. Now East Hampton Village is finding a way to inch into this role. The first step, though it appears minor, could actually be significant over time and make a meaningful addition to the stock of reasonably priced rental apartments in the village.

    On Jan. 18, the village board approved a change to the zoning code that will eliminate an onerous fee that otherwise has been sought from those who would develop or convert buildings to apartments in the centralized business districts. Applicants were asked to pay the village $10,000 for every parking space deemed necessary that they couldn’t provide. The cost was an obvious disincentive for property owners to create apartments; although second-floor residential rentals were permitted, few were built. The revision allows the fee to be waived on a case-by-case basis, giving the zoning board of appeals the responsibility.

    One of the possible, if unspoken, upsides of the change is that it could help steer new affordable housing toward the central commercial centers, where essential services, food, entertainment, and public transportation are available. By contrast, most of the Town of East Hampton’s affordable residential projects have been dispersed, adding to the number of cars on the roads rather than diminishing it.

    The irony is that East Hampton Village erred long ago by allowing the conversion of second-story apartments to offices, retail spaces, and the like. This measure would reverse this mistake, if one small project at a time.

   The South Fork’s “mutual aid” system, in which the various local ambulance services back one another up in the event that a squad cannot be mobilized, was called into question recently after a 97-year-old man injured in a fall waited for more than 20 minutes in the rain. This example is not the only time a victim has waited what seems like a long time for a ride to the hospital.

    Emergency service providers have long been aware that their all-volunteer corps are increasingly stretched thin. The number of calls has risen each year, while the number of emergency medical technicians has not. There is concern that the aging baby boom population will put new and additional pressure on ambulance services. On top of this, those at summer resorts, day-trip attractions, and share houses expect the volunteers to be there when they call for help.

    The ambulance companies and associations from Bridgehampton to Montauk are well aware of the demands upon them. Their leaders are said to have been in an ongoing dialogue about whether changes are needed. East Hampton Village Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. has said that something must be done. This is an important conversation to have, literally a matter of life and death.

   The great scramble to spend will begin in earnest now, following Monday’s passage in the United States Senate of a $50.5 billion aid package for areas hit by late October’s Hurricane Sandy. The challenge is to make sure the money will be used in a sensible manner and with the long term in mind. In East Hampton and elsewhere along the coast, with pledges to rebuild houses, businesses, and infrastructure, the outlook is not good.  

    What would be key as local, county, and state leaders look at the path ahead is to consider how to mitigate potential dangers based on the best available science and technical advice. The impulse to rebuild and defend after a natural disaster is understandable, but this defiant approach may not be the right one. To endure for generations, coastal communities must prepare for more and stronger storms, as well as rising sea levels, which means we all need to rethink how we live along the shore. So far, the necessary mental adjustment has not taken place. In fact, the promise of piles of federal dollars may put the inevitable day of reckoning further off.

    It is critical to remember that Hurricane Sandy was only a Category 1 storm, and that Irene, which passed through the region in 2011, was a tropical storm by the time it made landfall here. By contrast, the Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was estimated to be of Category 3 strength, and it carried a tsunami-like surge of water far in excess of any seen here during Sandy. We also must not forget winter northeasters, which, because they can stick around for 24 hours or more, can produce hurricane-style erosion. 

    Unfortunately, East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson has been preaching what amounts to a false dichotomy between an environmental perspective and the needs of commercial property owners, particularly in Montauk. This shows that like many other elected officials he simply doesn’t get it.

    Our economic vitality is inextricably linked to the area’s environment. To consider them at odds is more than misguided; it is irresponsible. The landward movement of the shoreline is inevitable. Retreat from the brink would not damage business interests. On the contrary, it is the only long-term way to be certain that the economy will thrive for decades to come. Lest one think that short-sightedness is limited to just one political party, Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, declared, “We are now just a presidential pen stroke away from beginning the rebuilding process in earnest.”

    The federal bill is lopsided in favor of the status-quo. Some $16 billion will go to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, $11 billion for shelter and utility costs from Sandy and other storms, and $10 billion for New York and New Jersey transit systems. Projects with an eye beyond immediate rebuilding are the stepchildren and will have to compete for a share of a mere $1 billion set aside for the Army Corps of Engineers.

    Given the distribution of funding in the Sandy bill, as well as the ongoing federal budget debacle, counting on an unending stream of federal dollars for sand replenishment at Montauk is a sucker’s bet. Far more sensible, if nearly impossible politically, would be to seek funding to reduce the number and density of shorefront structures through relocation and/or condemnation while creating a dune line to protect the remaining properties.

    A plan for the South Fork that does not include retreat as an option cannot be considered complete. Likewise, officials across the region must resist the temptation to spend first, plan later.

   The Sag Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals has been asked to give approval to a controversial project at the Harbor Heights service station on Hampton Street, on the East Hampton side of the village. In a plan put forward by the property’s owner, John Leonard, the existing service station would be razed and a new, larger one — with a convenience store, roughly the functional size of the village’s 7-Eleven — would rise on the site.

    But the question for the Sag Harbor Z.B.A. is of a more existential nature than how high the canopy at the station should be or just how many square feet might be acceptable for the convenience store. Instead, board members ought to be asking why Harbor Heights should be allowed to expand at all, especially since it would be in clear contradiction of local regulations that bar the gas station’s growth because it is on land with residential zoning.

    The basic issue is how Sag Harbor officials deal with this and other projects proposed for businesses that are on property zoned for houses alone. Such businesses are termed pre-existing, nonconforming uses, and they can be updated, restored, or repaired — up to a point. That mark, and this is key, is that the “degree of nonconformity shall not be increased,” according to Sag Harbor law.

    Another section of the village code supports the belief that any discussion of how much to allow Harbor Heights to grow is misplaced. It states that “every effort shall be exercised to contain those nonconforming buildings and uses that now exist.” Doubling the number of gas pumps from two to four, adding a food market, providing more space for mechanics, and putting up a high, lighted canopy cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered containing or restraining the use. Officials appear to have fallen for the old lawyer’s trick of debating the details while looking past the fundamental problems with an application.

    By a back-of-the-napkin calculation based on traffic projections provided by the applicant, the new station and convenience store could increase the number of patrons there by 40 percent. Others looking at the developer’s numbers have said traffic could triple. And this, even at the lower figure, is not expansion? Hello, Sag Harbor, is anyone home?

    Repair shops and filling stations are flat-out prohibited in the village’s residential zones. However, a convenience store as part of a filling station is allowed by special permit under a provision of village law suspiciously relevant to this application. If the property owner is to be believed that there is no money in selling gasoline, the main business on the site might be the store — which should have raised a question about change of use earlier in the process.

    Beyond all this is an unmentioned section of the law that allows the Sag Harbor Village Board to terminate a nonconforming use, like Harbor Heights, “when it is found detrimental to the conservation of the value of the surrounding land and improvements or to future development of surrounding lands and therefore is tending to deteriorate or blight the neighborhood.” As neighborhood opposition to the proposal coalesces around fears of falling property values and a loss of community character, the Harbor Heights property owner should keep in mind that the village, in the end, has this as its ultimate option.

   One thing is clear about the East Hampton Town Trustees: They are the proprietors of a gold mine in the form of sand, which can be dug and sold to oceanfront property owners whose houses are threatened by erosion. How officials have been going about divvying up this increasingly valuable commodity, however, leaves room for improvement.

    In recent years, the trustees have begun selling sand scooped from the seaward bottom of Georgica Pond to contractors, who then resell it by the yard to homeowners. Unfortunately, the process has been fraught with controversy, with allegations about lax bookkeeping, some contractors taking more than their agreed-upon number of cubic yards, and apparently arbitrary choices about who the trustees give contracts to. Like town and village boards, the trustees are obligated to advertise for bids from the companies that do the digging and selling, yet they appear to have drifted away from this procedure, deciding against one applicant for sand because they did not like the cut of his jib.

    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which has environmental authority over tidal areas, insists that only clean and “beach-compatible” mined sand can be placed along the shore. This means that sources are extremely limited. The D.E.C. has set a 12,000-cubic-yard annual limit on the amount of sand that can be dug from Georgica Pond; a similar amount has been taken each year at Mecox, which is within Southampton Town Trustee jurisdiction.

    This year, the East Hampton Trustees decided to grant sole access to the Georgica sand to a single contracting company. Another contractor, Billy Mack of First Coastal Corporation, has complained, saying he had believed the trustees would divide the 12,000-cubic-yard allotment among several firms and that the late-hour change left him and his clients with few options. One property owner needs about 10,000 cubic yards alone, Mr. Mack told the trustees at one of their recent meetings.

    If an increase in the amount of sand that can be taken from Georgica Pond is deemed environmentally sound, the Department of Environmental Conservation should agree to allow the East Hampton trustees to sell more to meet emergency needs.

    From where we sit, it appears that the trustees have to come up with a new system of awarding sand contracts that is open to scrutiny, and fair. The money involved is sizable. The demand is not likely to diminish in the foreseeable future. Seat-of-the-pants procedures are no longer good enough.