You know it is going to be a crazy summer when the New York news media start up with their East Hampton stories in April. Scratch that — March, when coverage of the final 2012 sales of the village’s $325 beach-parking permits went big.

    Curbed Hamptons, a Web-only venture, was first out of the gate with news of a record early sellout. The New York Post upped the ante on April 9 by obtaining village records naming the lucky 2,900 who scored the strictly limited nonresident stickers, a few movie stars and famous rock ’n’ rollers among them. Larry Cantwell, the village administrator, told The Post that he had taken hundreds of calls from people about the then no-longer-available permits. “They tell me they’ll pay whatever we want for them,” he said.

    Reading these accounts, it seems the village is leaving chips on the table, so to speak. Next year, East Hampton officials could set aside a few permits and conduct an auction once those remaining are gone, with the proceeds earmarked for public works and preservation.

    If celebrities, congressmen, and federal judges, as Mr. Cantwell told The Post, think the sky’s the limit when it comes to parking at Georgica, Main, Wiborg’s, Egypt, and Two Mile Hollow, why not help separate them from their money if there is good to be done with it?

   By a 3-to-2 vote, the East Hampton Town Board further consolidated power in the town budget office in the name of budget restraint early this month. Supervisor Bill Wilkinson, who led the party-line vote, explained that eliminating the town personnel officer would save $170,000. Len Bernard, the budget chief and Mr. Wilkinson’s appointee, will now be the only town official sharing hiring, firing, and, presumably, disciplinary matters with the supervisor. That’s not a good idea.

    East Hampton Town personnel issues have already been highly politicized. Late last year, for example, the Republican-dominated board failed to take action when a town employee was caught on video using a Highway Department truck to run over and remove roadside signs promoting the election of a Democratic candidate. Just last week, the town’s top building inspector apparently was hustled off on an unplanned vacation after a dressing down over having issued a stop-work order the supervisor didn’t like. Town Hall has been described for some time as having an unpleasant atmosphere in which Mr. Wilkinson frequently huffs about “subordinates” and how they should toe the line — as he sees it.

    One would think, therefore, that town officials would be especially sensitive to placing too much unchecked authority in the hands of two closely aligned individuals, especially when one is a political appointee who could be expected to keep an eye on making the boss happy. Lest East Hampton residents need any reminding, former Supervisor Bill McGintee and Mr. Bernard’s immediate predecessor as budget officer, Ted Hults, were responsible for a town deficit of some $27 million, which is still being paid down. It took months of forensic accounting to figure out what, acting exclusively, they had done, and the town’s bond rating, ability to pay for future projects, and credibility paid the price.

    No matter how much confidence Mr. Wilkinson has in Mr. Bernard, and vice versa, and how much money the two may try to save, a system of checks and balances is warranted. Having a career personnel officer, who reports to the town board as a whole, is one way to keep watch on lapses in judgment and untoward influence.

   Confronted with the threat of losing valuable property, people have made all sorts of claims about why the sea is rising and taking away land. As impassioned as some of these views are and as plausible as some sound, they should never by themselves be the basis for coastal planning. Rather, as laborious and time-consuming as it may be, there can be no substitute for solid science where official responses to erosion are concerned. Knowing in advance to the highest degree possible why a particular littoral phenomenon is taking place is a necessary prerequisite to actions that do not make matters worse, limit public access to the shoreline, and waste taxpayers’ dollars, or all of the above.

    Consider three examples: Some Lazy Point homeowners say the erosion in front of their houses is the result of a nearby deeply dredged inlet at Napeague Harbor. In Sagaponack, oceanfront property owners see three stone jetties at Georgica as the source of their woes. A north-facing Montauk neighborhood suffering repeated blows would be saved if only sand from one side of the Montauk Harbor inlet were sent to their side. Each of these beliefs might be borne out if studies were done, but it is equally likely that they are gross simplifications of highly complex and variable coastal processes.

    The elected and appointed officials who have to grapple with increasing cries for help from the owners of waterfront properties must look past the emotions involved in each situation and demand analysis from unbiased, credentialed authorities. Failure to understand the science behind what is going on will doom projects along the beaches to failure, and perhaps even harm public resources.

    Sound decision-making about erosion and dredging is a challenging responsibility for those in charge, and we do not envy them the task. However, shortcuts, sympathies, and haste are to be avoided in favor of well-informed deliberations that will stand the tests of time — and nature.

   The New York State attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, says the illegal trafficking of prescription drugs is epidemic on Long Island. This week, he announced legislation that would create a database intended to slow the rate at which narcotics end up on the street.

    Local police are dealing with nearly as many suspects high on pills, such as painkillers, as with drunken drivers. According to the attorney general’s office, drug treatment admissions, linked in part to oxycodone and other narcotics, soared by nearly 80 percent in Suffolk County from 2007 to 2010. Authorities believe that many of the pills reaching abusers are obtained with fraudulent prescriptions. And violent crime has been associated with these substances, as well.

    If passed, the bill would require doctors to check with an online system before writing prescriptions and pharmacists to do the same before dispensing these drugs, which would help spot wrongdoing. As burdensome as this sounds, it, or a similar program, is necessary, but should be established correctly.

    Details about how the database would work have yet to be provided. The greatest challenge will be to protect patient privacy, something required under state and federal law. There are legitimate conditions for which the Food and Drug Administration allows these drugs to be distributed. A method to assure that doctors are able to order them for the people who really require them — without placing law enforcement hurdles between doctors and pharmacists — will be essential.

   An unfortunate inequality is built into New York State’s new 2-percent tax-levy cap, which is becoming clear as school districts struggle to keep within that limit while local governments appear to be facing somewhat less immediate stress.

    For school districts that are grappling with rising costs, labor agreements, and state mandates, such as East Hampton and Springs, the cap has made budgeting for the next fiscal year more than difficult. In order to go beyond a 2-percent increase in the portion of school spending raised by taxes, districts would have to win at least 60 percent of the votes in their June budget referendums. It’s probably an understatement to say that could prove a high hurdle.

    By contrast, five-member municipal boards can exceed the 2-percent limit by a simple three-vote majority of the board — as about one-fifth of the state’s local governments did for 2012. And, as has been seen in the Town of East Hampton, for one, it is easy enough in the short term to slash local taxes by leaving jobs unfilled, eliminating some services, and dipping into surpluses. Of course, holding the line too much can set up a scenario when future costs will force local leaders to confront unpopular options. That can even be politically desirable if a rival party is in power when the bills come due.

    It is far more difficult for public schools to make trims, given contractual obligations, and in many cases rising student populations, than it is proving for New York’s towns and villages. This is undoubtedly not what the 2-percent cap’s backers intended because it puts too much of the burden for tax relief on educators and, by extension, students. Troubling, too, are indications, like one recently reported from State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, that some municipalities may seek to make up their budget gaps by tacking on new sales taxes and fees — something schools cannot do.

    The answer will not be in arbitrary or unfair limits but in systemic reforms in which municipal governments and school districts are not pitted against one another, each with their hands probing to varying depths in taxpayers’ pockets.

   A number of fed-up Springs residents are demanding that the Town of East Hampton do more to eliminate overcrowded and illegal houses. Their request for increased enforcement of laws already on the books is reasonable.

    From the late 1990s to the present, Springs has become something of a dumping ground for the town’s low-end multiple housing. The hamlet is not alone in this distinction; you can point to houses from Montauk to Wainscott that are home to more occupants than the four unrelated adults the law allows. The concentration in Springs of single-family houses used as de facto apartment buildings is disproportionate, and unfair.

    Residents complain that the town looks the other way as their neighborhoods are degraded. They are angry that taxes rise because the children of Spanish-speaking parents, who may live in illegal apartments, enroll in the schools. Property assessments, they say, have not kept pace with the widespread and illegal conversion of single-family houses. They fear that simple, get-tough responses will not do enough to preserve neighborhoods and ease school costs.

    Town officials say the Code Enforcement Department is doing its job, but the homeowners responsible for offending dwellings appear to have little fear of prosecution. The walls of local delis and food takeout places are hung with notes advertising rooms for rent. Stories from ambulance personnel and police are legion about basements carved into unsafe bunk rooms and houses in which bedrooms are locked from the outside. And, as some Springs residents say, you often can tell where a landlord is breaking the law just by counting the vehicles parked near certain houses.

    The Concerned Citizens of Springs has asked for a meeting with town officials on the matter of illegal housing and enforcement. Officials should, of course, listen with open minds about anything government can do to help. But it will be meaningless unless the town can figure out how this community can provide more and better legal housing for the people who work here.

   A passenger ferry to Sag Harbor has been talked about on and off for years, but now, in a joint venture involving a North Fork company and the Hampton Jitney, it may come to pass. Long Wharf could see passengers going to and from Greenport, and vice versa. There would be no service for cars on a 53-seat catamaran that the owner expects would make seven-day-a-week round trips as soon as Memorial Day weekend at a cost of $20 per person, $11 one way. If all goes well, Response Marine of Mattituck, which is seeking approval for the service, would hope to extend it to East Hampton and Montauk.

    There are hurdles ahead for the ferry, especially in Sag Harbor. Its fate may well rest on how the Village of Sag Harbor decides to respond to an offer from Suffolk County that it take back control of Long Wharf. Mired in a financial crisis, the county is eager to be rid of the pier and its attendant maintenance costs. As much as $400,000 in upgrades and safety improvements are said to be needed immediately. Until this is resolved, the fate of the ferry run will be unknown.

    On the positive side of the ledger, ferries can be part of a welcome alternative-transportation system. Planners have long made getting people out of cars a goal; this could be part of that. Although ferries of all sorts are banned in Sag Harbor now, the law could be repealed. This and a number of lesser issues are not insurmountable, however, if the public wants to jump aboard the idea.

    On the negative side, though, is the matter of parking. To avoid a worst-case parking problem in Sag Harbor, Jitney buses or vans would bring riders from Bridgehampton and East Hampton, where they apparently would leave their cars. The would-be ferry operators are optimistic that passengers would not mind boarding buses to get to the ferry. If this surprises us, and the ferry turns out to be popular anyway, long-term parking elsewhere would have to be found. Parking anywhere near Long Wharf is subject to strict time limits, and is always hard to find in season, possibly resulting in cars lining surrounding residential streets, which calls for a prohibition.

    Response Marine, which would run the waterborne part of the service, has said it would be willing to start the ferries on a trial basis this summer. This seems a fair way to test the popularity and the problems,  but ferry operators must convince Sag Harbor officials and those in surrounding jurisdictions that adequate parking will be available. Doing so by Memorial Day would appear to be a tall order.

   What to do about East Hampton’s septic waste treatment plant on Springs-Fireplace Road has become a source of political division and tension in Town Hall.

    Treatment ended there last year after the state cited it for environmental violations. Bringing it into compliance with discharge regulations could be very costly.

    On one side, Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley favor selling the plant to an UpIsland firm, perhaps for $300,000, a price some have derided as too low. The other point of view, that of Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, is that the town should learn more about its options, present them to the public, and draft a new wastewater management policy.

    Somewhere in the middle you find Councilman Dominick Stanzione, whose call for more time to explore the options has contributed to his falling from favor among some members of the local Republican leadership. They have accused him of throwing in his lot with Ms. Overby and Mr. Van Scoyoc, who are Democrats.

    Mr. Stanzione’s position is reasonable, however, and should not be dismissed out of hand. He recently said that though he liked the idea of turning the plant over to a private company, other options should be considered. Among them were closing the facility completely and using the land for something else, or keeping it running, as it has for the past few months, as a transfer station, where waste haulers deposit loads to be trucked out of town for treatment.

    The lone offer the town received for the plant came from a firm whose principals were 30-year friends of the consultant who wrote the town’s request for proposals for it. This has drawn some criticism, but not the scrutiny that it warrants. Mr. Wilkinson was eager enough to be rid of the plant that he was willing last week to begin negotiations. We disagree. East Hampton Town’s long-term interest would be better served by a more thorough deliberation.

   A plan supported by East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson to privatize four tennis courts at the Terry King park on Abraham’s Path in Amagansett has drawn considerable opposition, as well it should. Now, with new information about the prospective private operator’s plans, reasons for rejecting it are underscored.

    Mr. Wilkinson reasons that the courts need work that could cost $100,000 or more, and Sportime, which operates the nearby indoor sports facility called the Arena, has said it would be willing to lease the courts and repair them at its own expense. To be sure, the town is in a tough spot, pinched between McGintee-era debts and the current board’s aggressive tax cuts. Unfortunately, however, Sportime has been criticized for not entirely following its agreement with the town on its low-priced lease of the Arena, limiting public hours and failing to make required improvements.

    Sportime also runs an East Hampton tennis club that has a successful summer camp for children. Its brochure promises “the exclusive use of the Sportime Multi-Sport Arena,” despite an assurance in its agreement with East Hampton that the facility be substantially open to all, providing further evidence that leasing the four courts to the company would not be in the public’s interest.  

    The puzzle is why Sportime, which already has more than 30 private courts on two nearby parcels, totaling about 22 acres, would need to add the few at the Terry King park. As it turns out, the company is interested in erecting a steel building or fabic dome over the Terry King courts to allow year-round and inclement-weather play. There are at least two other tennis facilities in East Hampton Town with domes, and it makes sense that Sportime would want to get a piece of the 12-month pie.

    But winning approval for a building over some of the club’s private courts would be nearly impossible, however, because they are pre-existing nonconforming uses on residentially zoned land. Trying to expand the business in this way would be a long, complicated process, opening the club to scrutiny by the town planning board and giving neighbors an opportunity to speak out in opposition. Putting up a building at the Terry King park, on land zoned for recreatioin, would be a negligible expense for Sportime, and it could be done quickly.

    Under the town’s control, the Terry King courts cost $8 per hour between Memorial Day and Labor Day, and $4 for kids or senior citizens. Play is free after Labor Day until the nets are taken down for winter storage. If the courts are put in private hands, and under a roof of some sort, the price is likely to rise, hours to be limited, and free off-season games put in jeopardy.

    The town should not promote commercial empire-building at the expense of public recreation. Nor should it use public assets to aid in an end run around zoning rules. This is a bad deal and should not go forward.

   Since just about their inception, East Hampton Town’s citizens advisory committees have been a thorn in the side of elected officials. The current sitting town board, at least on the Republican side, is the latest to be vexed by the committees, shuffling liaison assignments and grumbling about a letter sent by the Montauk group. East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson reprimanded the committees collectively in a recent letter, reminding them that they were supposed to be the “eyes and ears” of the town board, not advocacy agencies unto themselves. Mr. Wilkinson is right, of course; town board members are expected to attend their meetings and report back on community concerns.

    What has happened to differing degrees is that the groups do what groups will do, that is, become interested in various aspects of life around town and seek to influence outcomes as best they can to suit their views. Often, this comes in the form of their weighing in on land-development debates — as in a recent situation in which the Montauk committee on its own asked State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. for help in regulating chain or “formula” retail stores. It would be difficult to imagine an elected official who did not pitch a snit if an advisory group went above his or her head in this way.

    And yet, the frequent occasions when the advisory committees have gone beyond the role of advisers points to an overarching problem, that the present town board — as well as the planning, zoning, and architectural review boards — and those in the past have failed to be sufficiently responsive to or aware of neighborhood concerns. In fact, unlike some parts of Town Hall, which are more or less beholden to their financial and ideological supporters, the citizens committees have been profoundly democratic and egalitarian, settings where ordinary people, not business voices and political party hacks, can lead the conversation. The rise of the citizens committees can also be seen as a failing of the town boards historically to pay attention to ordinary people and what they care about. The Montauk group, for example, would not have had to send a copy of its letter about formula stores to Mr. Thiele had its members thought the town board would take up the issue without some prodding from above.

    For some time it has seemed to us that the citizens committees might better strike out as independent entities. This may be the moment when it would be better for the town as a whole if each hamlet had its own, unfettered advocate. Failing that, the town board should pay them a lot more respect.