East Hampton Town’s big experiment with an airport control tower began this week as the operators flipped the switches on their communication equipment and radar for the first time. Though the tower is billed as a way to control the routes by which aircraft enter and leave a 4.8-mile radius around the Wainscott runways, and thereby limit noise annoyances for residents, we have our doubts. Bets are that it will not make the noise problem any less, though it may move it around a little bit.

    Helicopters, which prompt many of the complaints to the town’s hotline, are just plain loud, wherever they fly. Jets’ takeoffs and landings are going to rattle windows and nerves no matter what. And, seasonally staffed tower or none, the only way to reduce the aggravation of many residents is to limit the hours that certain kinds of aircraft can use the facility.

    Such restrictions are anathema, of course, to those who make money from transporting high-paying passengers or provide refueling, cleaning, or other services for private jets. Some owners of small aircraft based at East Hampton Airport have been swept up in the opinion vortex, paradoxically siding with the for-profit operators, putting them to some degree at odds with their own best interests as their once-quaint home field becomes ever more commercial.

    By improving safety, the tower, which is being paid for with money from the town budget, may have the unintended consequence of actually increasing use of the airport at night and in bad weather. No one yet knows for sure. This is indeed an experiment worth watching closely.

   The East Hampton Town Budget and Finance Committee has subtly rebuked Supervisor Bill Wilkinson in a recommendation it made last month that no elected officials or town employees be on a proposed new town audit committee.

    This came after a list of prospective members of such a committee was circulated that consisted of Mr. Wilkinson, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, the town’s budget officer, its in-house auditor, the secretary of the local Republican committee, and a town resident who has made sizable contributions to G.O.P. campaign funds. The budget and finance committee apparently had this obvious imbalance in mind when it offered its advice on how the town should proceed in establishing an audit group — and what its responsibilities might be.

    While not rejecting the local Republican committee’s Carole Campolo, or Stanley Arkin, the big donor who is said to have a background in investment banking and money management, the bud­get and finance group suggested that the town board name at least one independent person who is an auditing expert, with employment experience in finance or accounting. The committee also offered to give the board a list of qualified and willing local residents and said that the supervisor, who serves as the town’s chief financial officer, had no business being in an oversight role of what is, in the end, his own performance.

    The purpose, the budget and finance committee wrote, of the audit committee should be to encourage candid discussion of possible improvements to the town’s financial controls and to give the residents comfort that East Hampton’s management has operated in their best interests. To this end, they said that if the town board insisted on placing its own members on the new audit committee, there should be seats for each political party when the town board itself is split. Moreover, it said, an independent committee could field complaints from whistleblowers, something a group consisting of elected officials, their backers, and staff could not impartially do.

    These are sound recommendations.

   Not too long ago an e-mail crossed our desk alerting us to the “Hamptons Summer Share Must-Have Item.” We couldn’t guess what it could be and doubt that you will, so here goes: It’s an ottoman that folds out into a single bed.

    “It is the new must-have for crowded summer shares and the constant flow of overnight guests at second homes,” a digital press release stated.

    Nothing against the manufacturer, or the ottoman itself, which, at $700, is undoubtedly very nice. However, it takes a certain chutzpah to pronounce it an East End necessity. It may be attractive, useful, and even “effortless to open,” as the release claims, but it is still an ottoman. Those who pay top prices for summer shares are going to be put out if they draw the short straw and don’t have an actual bed to sleep on.

    Under the covers (so to speak), a bigger problem is the tacit approval of cramming people into all kinds of houses. We’ve heard torrents in recent years about laborers and their families jammed into small houses, but haven’t paid much attention to crowding by those here for fun rather than work. Overcrowding is illegal from a zoning point of view, of course, but it can also create safety problems such as falling balconies and electrical fires. Just ask, for example, the Amagansett homeowners who discovered as many as 98 students deep into an end-of-year, beer-soaked party at a rented house last month. There will always be those, like the alleged promoter who put together this Amagansett bash — and as many as seven more in various locations — who try to cash out. As far as the ottoman goes, though, let’s think that those who buy them here have visiting friends or relatives in mind.

   A bill sponsored by State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle and Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. just might change the world. Okay, so the measure to give local governments and school districts the ability to issue their own tax breaks for “green” buildings and retrofits cannot by itself stem global warming or slow the rate of sea level rise, but it would encourage individuals do their part.

    The legislation was approved without a single no vote by both the Assembly and Senate, and with good reason. Starting next year, it would allow the state’s municipal boards to offer property tax exemptions for work that meets the standards set by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design organization. For the first three years, the bill would keep any increased assessment from being reflected on a property owner’s tax bill. For the highest-rated, or “platinum” LEED-certified projects, assessments would not jump until year seven.

    Implementation, of course, falls to local governments, as it does with so many of Albany’s bright ideas. Town, village, and school boards must adopt the program. Then, local assessors would review the construction and somehow remember  to add the increased assessments once the exemptions timed out. It is potentially a hassle, but well worth it.

    What is revolutionary about the legislation is that it empowers school districts, whose taxes make up the greatest share of most property tax bills, to promote green building — no more waiting around for town officials to find the motivation. At the same time, the cost in terms of lost taxes is negligible, as present assessments remain in place; only the added value of the new construction or retrofit would be exempted.

    The bill awaits Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s signature. It will then be up to local governments to take advantage of it. We hope they do so as soon as possible.

   Some Montauk business owners are undoubtedly pleased that when it comes to their interests East Hampton Town’s zoning rules need not apply. Such was the message two weeks ago when Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson cut a ceremonial ribbon amid an atmosphere of bonhomie at the grand opening of the Montauk Beach House.

    The former Ronjo motel was at the center of controversy earlier this year when the town decided to sell a portion of a long-unused alley that bisected the property to its new owners. That fight died down when the Suffolk district attorney chimed in with a strong, but flawed, reading of the zoning code. This was enough, it appears, to give the Beach House cover to proceed with a number of additions to the property that should have first been run by the town planning board. In keeping with other instances of disregard for the law under the current and previous Town Hall administrations, the necessary review did not occur.

    The outlook for reasonable implementation of the town’s zoning laws is poor today; any town staffer who dared to suggest that tacking on a membership pool club, independent clothing boutique, nightclub, bar, kitchen, and an opening-night performance by a rock band for 200 guests might have to be examined by the planning board would have had good reason to fear for his or her job. All of the Beach House work, mind you, is on land not zoned for hotels or resorts, but for shops and the like.

    But this story is not about one hotel. Certain requirements of the town code are being routinely ignored on projects large and small, particularly when the properties are owned by those friendly with the supervisor and his political backers — and, most recently, when they are in Montauk. In a sweep some weeks ago, for example, code enforcers ticketed several businesses in the vicinity of Town Hall for illegally illuminated signs, but they have so far patently ignored similar ones in Montauk and elsewhere.

    Several popular nightspots in the easternmost hamlet have been allowed to spill out into huge, traffic-snarling outdoor gatherings. And on Friday, enforcers had to shut down a massive dance party on East Lake Drive for which the town board had issued a permit for 800 guests despite the promoters’ oft-repeated boast that 2,500 people had attended the same event last year. That property, Rick’s Crabby Cowboy on Lake Montauk, was at the center of an earlier dustup over dredging that drew a $75,000 fine from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for work that Supervisor Wilkinson had insisted was on the up-and-up.

    Montauk may be different from the rest of the Town of East Hampton, but the same laws apply. Perhaps the time has come to reconsider the hamlet’s incorporation as a village with its own set of rules and regulations and to let the ensuing battle between the forces of preservation and what some call progress begin.

   There was nothing outwardly wrong with the scene on a recent Sunday morning at Lazy Point as a well-muscled young man gave paddleboard instruction to two clients. But looking a little closer you would have noticed that the Jeep he used to transport his boards was parked at the water’s edge without a town four-wheel-driving permit. And then, as you regarded the view or dug for clams, you could not help but hear his commanding voice carry on the still air. As you left the beach shortly before 11, you might have wondered as well where the town’s ticket-writers were and why they had not shown up to even politely ask the young man to move his vehicle off the sand to nearby and ample free parking.

    This summer, the for-profit use of beaches in the Town of East Hampton has begun to draw attention. Some residents are starting to get upset and have complained to authorities. The town trustees, who manage most of the shoreline, are against it; the town board, whose jurisdiction includes much of Montauk, is less firm. So far, approvals have been on an ad-hoc basis, and some people, like the young man giving paddleboard lessons at Lazy Point, do not bother to ask permission at all. Ordinary beachgoers are right to feel put out when a trailer-load of kayaks or paddleboards fills up their favorite beaches, particularly when many of the clients’ vehicles clogging parking areas are from out of town.

    It is not surprising that the beaches would become the site of friction during the summer high season — and that demands on government to do something about it would increase. Another Amagansett spot, Indian Wells Beach, has in the last year or two been plagued by large, beer-fueled gatherings of young people drinking in plain sight (some standing in the surf, no less, or playing a drinking game in which cans are thrown into the waves, retrieved, and chugged).

    Let the good times roll seems to be the message, whether intentional or not, of the glaring failure to enforce a sense of propriety where the beaches are concerned. We wish it were not so.

   East Hamptoners are beginning to express wishes that officials put a stop to huge, daytime booze-fueled gatherings at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett. Doing so would be easy, as we explain at the conclusion of this editorial. The question is whether the town should bring the hammer down or let the party go on.

    Like any number of curious observers who had heard tell of the informal parties at Indian Wells, we took a walk to the right of the lifeguard stands Saturday to see the scene firsthand. It was, if anything, unfamiliar, unless you are among those who have witnessed the shenanigans during spring break along the Florida coast. Without exaggerating, there were hundreds of what appeared to be 20 and 30-somethings spread across the sand. Many had open cans of beer in their hands, mostly Bud Light, for some unknown reason.

    A volleyball game was under way. Four young men lined up their dozens of empty beer cans along the side of the competitive bean-bag-toss match they had going. Others played a game in which a guy on the beach tried to kick a soccer ball into the chests of a bunch of buddies standing waist deep in the surf. A dozen or two more, men and women alike, bobbed nearby, keeping their beers above water. Up on dry land, a number of smaller groups within the massive whole listened to nondescript pop tunes that drifted from battery-operated radios and the like. And, yes, among the hundreds of people was a young man in a bear costume. Every beach blast needs one, right?

    As odd as the party (if you can accurately call it that) was, it was all rather benign. No one appeared ready to fight, nor, despite all the alcohol consumption, did anyone look particularly drunk. Though empty cans of Bud were scattered around, we are told the revelers usually clean up after themselves.

    What was going on in the parking lot was perhaps more of a problem. An East Hampton Town police officer was rather forcefully explaining to a recalcitrant taxi-van driver that he had to keep moving and not clog the turn-around. Other vehicles, including more taxis from who knows where, circled the lot, their drivers looking for places to park. Over the din of a far-too-loud generator on one of the concessionaire’s trucks, a marine patrol officer could be heard talking over a cellphone about the crowd and what to do. An Amagansett resident told us that at times lines of beer-filled people clog the tiny restroom, leaving it inaccessible to those with young children who desperately need to go.

    Some members of the East Hampton Town Board have said they are reluctant to put a damper on the fun. You could hear that as a clear, if unstated, expression of desire to keep the cash flowing into town by whatever means, whether in sales of six-packs or illegal share-house rentals — despite the cost to the community in extra taxes for cleanups and patrols or in terms of residents’ enjoyment of the beaches.

    We were struck recently at something a young mother of our acquaintance said about it all. Indian Wells was her go-to beach, but she is no longer comfortable taking her children there. It just wasn’t relaxing anymore, she said. This is the bottom line for us: An East Hampton taxpayer and lifelong resident no longer cares to go to “her” beach. To stand by and allow this to happen is a profound failure of the town’s leadership.

    The solution is easy. The East Hampton Town Board and Trustees should move quickly to ban the consumption of alcohol at beaches where there are lifeguards from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. If people want to have an evening glass of wine or an all-night beer bash, fine. The town could even let those pretentious catered events with full bars continue. But daytime drinking and enormous frat-style parties should be no more. The town code already gives officials the latitude to post no-alcohol signs at the beaches. The time has come to do so — at least for daytime hours.

   Another week, another fatality on the South Fork roads. The death of Douglas Schneiderman, 51, of McLean, Va., in a head-on collision on Route 114 as he was headed to Sag Harbor on Sunday brought the total dead this summer in incidents in eastern Southampton Town and East Hampton to five. Make no mistake, five automobile-related deaths here is a significant number; in some years there have been none at all. And then there are the accidents in which people are injured, with some victims carrying physical or mental scars with them the rest of their lives. Mr. Schneiderman’s wife and daughter were seriously injured in the crash, as was the driver of the other vehicle, Brian K. Midgett, 20, of East Hampton.

    As notable as the statistics has been a common reaction among many people we have spoken to since news of Sunday’s crash began to spread. To a man and a woman, the sense has been that these deaths are not surprising, given the heightened craziness and risk on the roads this season. The South Fork seems out of control as too many people compete for too little space on the beaches, in shops and restaurants, and on the pavement.

    For many, the balance has been tipped too far in favor of the summer hordes. The result is a place that does not feel like home during what many consider the nicest part of the year. Elected officials have dismissed complaints about noisy, overcrowded nightclubs by telling neighbors in effect to grin and bear it because the disturbances would last for only a few months. Yet East Hampton Town is fast becoming something unfamiliar, something its residents did not sign up for. The feeling is widespread.

    Drawing a straight line from the summertime madness to Mr. Schneiderman’s death — and the others — is impossible. What must be understood and reflected on by those in a position to do something to stem the tide, however, is that many people strongly believe there is a connection.

   One thing seems impossible in East Hampton Town — an even-handed and calm discussion of any aspect of trucks on the beaches. We were reminded of this last week when a reasonable question came up about whether the Three Mile Harbor side of Maidstone Park was a suitable place for drivers of four-wheel-drive vehicles to set up camp during daytime hours.

    Time was, you might see one or two trucks on the sand there, just south of the stone breakwater. Nowadays, maybe a dozen line the shore on a hot weekend afternoon. These are not vehicles used by anglers; they belong to beachgoers who don’t want to carry umbrellas and chairs down the sand or just like to sit by their trucks, where access to beach toys for the kids and refreshments is easy and at hand.

    Because of the traffic, the beach has become so pounded down that four-wheel drive is now barely necessary there. Let’s face it, the line of vehicles is unpleasant to the eye, inappropriate in a natural area, and the trucks take up an unfair amount of the limited space, blocking in some cases the time-honored free passage along the strand afforded town residents in the Dongan Patent of 1686.

    A reasonable answer might be to ask that able-bodied people park on the pavement and reserve the daytime right to drive on this particular beach for those with physical handicaps. Do not expect any proposal of this kind to lead to a rational conversation about the appropriate time and place for four-wheeling, however. Instead, any voices of compromise would be quickly drowned out by cries that limits of any kind would be a slippery slope to a total ban. Hogwash.

    At its best, government is supposed to be about making difficult choices. It will be regrettable if the noise about beach driving prevents a much-needed conversation from taking place at all.

   If ever one needed evidence of America’s profoundly contradictory attitude toward alcohol, one need look no further than the Town of East Hampton. By night, police conduct necessary sweeps to get drunken drivers off the roads. By day, it is a different story: Public drinking — to considerable excess — seems to be encouraged, at least tacitly.

    We were surprised and not a little disappointed to learn that the East Hampton Town Trustees, whose jurisdiction notably includes most of the town’s beaches, failed to even discuss the soggy, beer-fueled weekend gatherings at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett at their last meeting, even though the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee had mulled the problem (and a report thereof had appeared on our front page).

    We have a view about the matter: Daytime alcohol use should be banned on town beaches while lifeguards are present. The trustees may have come to a different conclusion if they bothered to take up the issue, but nary a word passed the nine members’ lips. Part of their reluctance may be that in order to get a ban on the books, they would have to gain the town board’s cooperation. That is no excuse for pretending the growing problem at Indian Wells does not exist, however.

    East Hampton Village and the state parks prohibited alcohol on their beaches long ago. In the town, the public might prefer that drinking continue in some places or at some times, for example, after families have gone home.

    It is reasonable to expect that the Indian Wells gatherings will grow, and perhaps spread. With alcohol abuse there on weekend afternoons comes greater costs to residents’ enjoyment of the beach, as well as potential risks caused by drunken drivers or soused pedestrians. Town officials, both on Pantigo Road and in the trustees’ sea-view redoubt on Bluff Road, should take up the question sooner rather than later.