A move by the East Hampton Town Board to take on the seasonal problem of huge outdoor crowds at some bars and restaurants is welcome, but support should come with several caveats.

    As things stand, the town code is vague about how outdoor patrons of places such as at Cyril’s on Napeague and the Surf Lodge and Sloppy Tuna in Montauk should be counted — if at all. Regulations govern how much parking must be provided based on interior space, but give little guidance when the masses assemble for drinks under the open sky.

    Some observers have argued that crowds of more than 50 people on a commercial property should trigger the town’s mass gathering law, but, even if this is legally valid, it has not been tested.

    East Hampton Town Councilwoman Theresa Quigley has prompted a discussion of new outdoor-occupancy rules. A draft she has prepared would allow one person for every seven square feet of “usable space.” While this might work in the town’s central business zones, where public parking is provided, if the proposal was put in place without change for pre-existing, nonconforming bars and restaurants in residential zones, it could make things worse.

    The Surf Lodge and the newly hip Ruschmeyer’s Inn on Second House Road in Montauk, for example, are each in a residential zone. They have ample property to which this generous 7-to-1 calculation could be applied. Think, too, about what could happen elsewhere in the Town of East Hampton if this became law. Could East Hampton Point’s Sunday reggae event suddenly book Ziggy Marley and draw 1,000 people? In all likelihood, yes. There may be enough room for them outdoors, but where would they all park?

    If the town is going to codify outdoor occupancy by businesses in residential zones, it must tie the rules to a property owner’s providing off-street parking for those patrons. In no way is it right for residents to have to cope with business parking on streets not laid out for that purpose, as well as the attendant noise and litter. Want one patron for every seven square feet of outdoor space? Provide a place for everyone to park. That quid pro quo should be in the law if it is to merit serious consideration.

    On a side note: Contrary to something Ms. Quigley has said, East Hampton is not “a resort economy”; far more economic activity — as well as the majority of property tax receipts — are generated by second-home owners who are entitled to a certain quality of life here. That quality of life does not extend to outdoor hoopla each and every summer weekend.

    Those who support the Surf Lodge and the other pre-existing, nonconforming operations say that residents who bought houses nearby should have known the risk. We see it the other way: The people who bought certain bars and restaurants should have known their properties did not meet the town’s modern zoning. Buyer beware applies to business owners, too, and in the case of nonconformance, even more so.

    If businesses like the idea of having their outdoor capacity defined so that they can expand legally, fine. They should not be allowed, however, to make residents bear the burden of their success — or failure. Reining in these trouble spots is appropriate; the draft so far would fail to do so and probably make matters permanently worse.

   State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr.’s interest in taking up the question of whether local governments can regulate chain or “formula” stores is welcome, and East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley should drop the huffiness and be willing to consider the possibility. East Hampton should not some day look and feel like anywhere else in strip-malled America, and it is up to town officials to see that it does not.

    There is no town ban on chain or “big-box” stores, nor would a ban be legal. What some communities — not many to be sure — have done is told businesses with more than, say, a dozen branches that they must meet local design standards. Courts have ruled that carefully written regulations pass constitutional muster, Mr. Thiele has said.

    In Northern California, the Sonoma City Council has been working for some time on rules that would govern where and how large retail corporations could open outposts. The draft ordinance now with the city’s planning commission strictly restricts where new restaurants with 250 or more outlets, such as McDonald’s or Starbucks, can go. The draft also asks retailers with 10 or more stores to apply for a permit, with the intention of giving an edge to unique, locally owned operations. The idea is to keep profits in the area instead of seeing them piped off to distant corporate offices, and to maintain the city’s attractive character.

     There are opponents, of course, who say that any business is good business and that Sonoma should not stand in the way of commerce. Liberal darlings like Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, they point out, might be scared off. And who could be against ice cream? This point of view has audible echoes here.

    At an East Hampton meeting last week, Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Quigley reacted negatively when the subject came up, objecting specifically to news that Councilwoman Sylvia Overby had shared information about chain store regulations with some members of the news media. Their reaction was influenced by complaints from Ms. Overby and her Democratic colleague on the board, Peter Van Scoyoc, that as minority-party board members they were not seeing meeting agendas until the last minute.

    The unfortunate effect of this is that the prospects for movement on chain stores are slim. Ms. Quigley said last week that she did not see a need to add new requirements. This is significant, as she and Mr. Wilkinson tend to see eye-to-eye on land-use questions, and Dominick Stanzione, who is emerging as a moderate voice on the town board, has not been willing to buck his two fellow Republicans on any big-ticket issues.

    While not universal, it appears that many East Hampton residents favor some kind of limits. Consider the strongly negative reaction to the 7-Eleven store in Montauk and to one that was said to be planned for Amagansett. It is our hope — and what is more important, that of a considerable proportion of residents — that the discussion of additional, modern regulation of new retail operations does not die a death in partisan bickering.

   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.

    The announcement Monday that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had given final approval to the designation of the Montauk Lighthouse as a national historic landmark was more than welcome news: It gives the Light, which stands on an eroding Montauk bluff, priority status in seeking federal grants and aid should it be damaged in a hurricane or other storms.

    The Montauk Historical Society, which owns the Light, began its quest six years ago, enlisting the help of Robert Hefner, an East Hampton historic preservation consultant, in gathering supportive material, and going to Washington to make the case.

    The Light was built in 1796 as part of a system that helped guide sea traffic to and from the growing Port of New York, and it was for this, not its appeal as a present-day tourist attraction, that the landmarks committee of the National Parks Service advisory board recommended it receive the distinction. The Light now joins three national landmarks on the South Fork, the Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner house and studio in Springs, the Thomas Moran house in East Hampton Village, and the Old Whalers Church in Sag Harbor — each a significant part of this country’s cultural heritage.

    The designation comes just as the Lighthouse Museum is about to reopen for the season. A celebration is truly in order.

   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.

   For the first time, the veil has been pulled back on what the Federal Aviation Administration would and would not do in the matter of noise control at and around East Hampton Airport. In a detailed response to a request for clarity from Representative Tim Bishop, the agency said it would not pursue legal action once certain “grant assurances” expire if the town decided to impose what it calls “reasonable” restrictions there.

    The long fight over use of the airport has become more intense as the years have gone by and more people have come to live under its approach paths. Then, too, more and more helicopters are using East Hampton Airport, irritating people well beyond the town’s borders. It need not be this way. The airport has been an unnecessarily divisive problem for a town beset by plenty of other challenges — and one that pits a relatively small number of aircraft owners and fixed-base operators against thousands of residents whose lives and weekends are disrupted.

    A control system to be in place this summer holds some promise of noise reduction, but will not be an entirely satisfactory solution. Helicopters will still chuff at the air as they approach and depart. Jet flights at the crack of dawn will still rattle windows and disturb the peace as they roar over backyards.

    Airport interests genuinely fear that the facility could one day be closed, which is precisely why they are so eager to see F.A.A. oversight continue. As the recent memo from the administration says, new grants would obligate it to seek to block any locally imposed restrictions. A recent example is an East Hampton Town Board decision in December to seek money from Washington for deer fence repairs that would cost less than the town already has paid out of pocket for a lawyer to consult on airport affairs. The town could clearly afford to do the work itself, and still has the chance to avoid F.A.A. money for the project even though airport interests have convinced town officials that their only hope lies in Washington.

    If fear — rational or not — that the airport could be mothballed is what stands in the way of meaningful noise reduction, that is the first problem that must be addressed to begin to break the logjam. Pilots and airport business owners must be assured that their hobbies and livelihoods will not be at risk. Only then will they stand aside and stop their efforts to block local control by convincing officials to take more money from the F.A.A.

    A solution appears tantalizingly close.

   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 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.

   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.