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.

Like Ernest Hemingway’s character who married the “first girl who was nice to him,” the Town of East Hampton is on the verge of a rushed deal to sell the office condominiums that house various departments with no plan on the horizon for where they would ultimately go.

    The notion of selling the seven condos has been around for some time. They house the planning, zoning, building, and natural resources offices, along with the assessors, tax receiver, and ordinance enforcement staff — a good portion of the workers who keep town government humming along. The town’s maintenance costs for the office suites add up to $145,000 a year. The board set a minimum bid of $3 million, following an appraisal which set their value much higher — more than $4.4 million for all seven.

    The motivation for selling the condos apparently comes from a specific, unidentified would-be buyer who has the town hustling to ink the deal. A request for bids, ostensibly to allow others to get a crack at the purchase, was announced on Dec. 8, with a due date of 1 p.m. yesterday and a closing within 60 days. That was hardly enough time for anyone other than a buyer with an inside track to make an offer. Beyond a legal notice and a piece of paper or two posted in Town Hall, there was minimal fanfare for the sale. Nor was it listed with real estate agents, so far as anyone can tell. According to the bid specifications, the town would occupy the offices rent-free for a year, if sold at the bulk discount of $3 million, then pay rent at a rate to be determined by the new owner if it wanted to stay on.

    Whether or not selling the office space is sound long-term financial planning (which we doubt), one disturbing fact is clear: Before long, the town will either have to pay market-level rent to remain in the suites or begin a major building project likely to cost taxpayers more over time than remaining in the condos it already owns, despite the $3 million windfall.

    These departments handle critically important town functions. A solid plan for where they are to be housed — and at a known cost — must be in place before any sale is contemplated.

   A coffee shop in Sag Harbor may be closing at the end of the month after its landlord handed the lease to someone else. It is an old story: A property owner decides to go in a new direction, or raise the rent, or renovate. Happens all the time.

    But this go-round is different. Java Nation has been in its location up a set of stairs off Sag Harbor’s Main Street for 17 years and become an anchor for the village, a draw for those who drive from as far as Montauk, a place for regulars to talk over the news of the world, to put up notices about lost cats and jobs wanted. The story has a bitter taste, too, in that the landlord has arranged for a new, more “upscale” coffee shop to take the old one’s place. It was this more than anything else that seemed to heat the blood of the regulars.

    The last vestiges of the village’s manufacturing heyday could be sniffed, some said, in the aroma of roasting beans rising nearly every morning from Java Nation. The shop, run by Cheryl and Andres Bedini, was an antidote to the hermetic and characterless feeling of, say, East Hampton Main Street. Worst of all, the end of Java Nation could mean Sag Harbor is finally succumbing, becoming one of the “Hamptons,” full of high-end chain stores in summer, groaningly empty in winter.

    A boycott has been discussed, as have acts of protest that could land you in the village lockup. For many, the end of the month, when Java Nation is supposed to be gone, is an existential turning point for the community. For personal interest (many of us at The Star survive on its coffee) and in the interest of the real Sag Harbor, we hope the Bedinis find a new home nearby.

   As the Springs School Board continues its struggle to find ways to pay for educating students while not asking taxpayers for more and more, a cost-savings idea is gaining ground. The notion of eliminating the district superintendent’s position and handing those duties to the school principal was discussed at a forum on Dec. 22. Meanwhile, in the East Hampton School District, the board is grappling with the prospect of overcrowding in the elementary and middle schools even as the last details of its recent $79 million expansion are finalized.

    In Springs, money problems are acute. Taxes in the hamlet are already among the highest in East Hampton Town. The school’s enrollment has surged in the last decade, with an increasing proportion of new students classified as English-language learners, which adds to staffing requirements. To be sure, the recent discussion of combining the superintendent’s and principal’s roles (plus an assistant or two) was inconclusive. But from an outside perspective it seems dicey for a district facing many challenges to have so much riding on a single person.

    Springs has somewhere just under 1,000 students to provide for and keep tabs on, whether at the Springs School itself or at East Hampton High School. It also provides bus transportation for Ross School students and those who attend the classes of the Board of Educational Services. Along with financial oversight and matters concerning the physical plant, that seems enough for one person to keep tabs on without also adding the many academic challenges and day-to-day difficulties arising at the elementary school itself. One person might be able to do the job, but whether it would be done well is another matter. The decision-makers in Springs should find out exactly how its superintendent and principal have divvied up their responsibilities before taking what may turn out to be a counterproductive step.

    On Tuesday, East Hampton’s board was expected to discuss the size of classes at the John M. Marshall Elementary School. Though this district has deeper financial resources than Springs, the willingness of taxpayers to come up with money again for new construction is probably limited at this point.

    Both districts’ problems are pressing and will make for a difficult year ahead for their elected boards and administrators.

East Hampton Village tends to get it right when it comes to aesthetics. The village once was dubbed America’s most beautiful village, and successive generations of elected officials have taken that honor to heart. In that spirit, and notwithstanding any claims to the contrary, the village board has proposed additional decorum on signs on private property — specifically those put up by real estate companies. If the law is enacted as proposed, real estate signs would be just a little larger than a page of this newspaper folded in half.

    The board is to consider the code change at an 11 a.m. hearing tomorrow that would limit on-premises real estate signs to one-and-a-half square feet; signs up to seven square feet are allowed now. The village has pointed out that similar laws are in place on Shelter Island and in Palm Beach and brokers in those places have learned to live with the restrictions. We would love to see this come to pass here, but there is one important caveat: The suggested code change is probably unconstitutional.

    Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has given real estate signs an exemption from outright bans, certain questions of fairness remain. For example, the village’s new law would limit the size of house-for-sale notices while allowing temporary construction company signs to continue to be as large as seven square feet. The village’s well-intentioned code change should be rewritten to withstand potential legal challenges — and be fair. This is a case where one size fits all is the only legal way to proceed.

    That’s the good news. The bad news is that you can forget about a similar restriction in East Hampton Town anytime soon. In the current political climate, code enforcers are not seeking compliance on obvious violations of elements of the sign code already on the books.

    We expect the village board to iron out the legal wrinkles in the proposed law. We doubt that the town board will follow the village’s lead, but maybe we’ll be surprised.

   According to the key contributor to East Hampton Town’s 2006 dark-skies lighting code, East Hampton Town Councilwoman Theresa Quigley is confused about a draft revision of those regulations. While stopping short of accusing her and Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson of lying, Susan Harder says she checked with an architect who supposedly was consulted on the revisions, and he told her that as far as he knew, he had nothing to do with it. The question of who said what to whom — or did not — obscures the central issue, which is just why and on whose behalf the Republican majority on the town board decided to mess with the lighting law in the first place.

    Attempts to improve 1970s-era protections of the quality of the night sky date back about a decade in East Hampton Town and have their origins in an almost-one-woman effort by Ms. Harder. In 2002, she asked, “Why can’t we get the night sky declared a scenic resource?” After a couple of years’ work, the town as well as East Hampton Village did just that. In the village, a 2004 law that requires lights to be shielded and not directed upward was passed without a fuss. East Hampton Town strengthened its lighting code in 2006, also with minimal complaint. “Keep that lurid orange glow to the west of us,” seemed the consensus.

    However, by 2010, when the last recalcitrant business owners were supposed to comply with the law’s generous “sunset” provisions on offending fixtures, it became a problem. Suddenly, there were objections: The rules supposedly were difficult to understand and compliance would result in inadequate outdoor safety. While the complaints may have been sincere, it is probably more than coincidence that the beefs emerged only when the affected business owners were about to have to pony up for required changes.

    Dark skies, or “smart-lighting” rules like those in place here, are important for several reasons. They preserve the view of the stars and allow for a welcome distinction between night and day when the sky is overcast. Animals — and people — are said to do better when night is night and day is day. An unobscured view of the heavens, if you take a metaphysical view, helps remind us of our place in the universe and encourages study and understanding of the mysteries of the heavens.

     Ms. Quigley appears to be spearheading an effort to completely undermine the East Hampton Town lighting code. As we have editorialized before, if the cost of compliance is the objection for a handful of business owners, the town might offer a bounty on outdated fixtures. Though reasonable adjustments to some of the language in the law may be warranted, there should be no wholesale dumping of the existing regulations.

   It is good news indeed that the Village of Sag Harbor appears to be moving forward with a project to reduce the amount of polluted run-off that crosses Havens Beach and flows into the bay. A short creek there, more of a drainage ditch, has for years carried water from surrounding upland properties and several roadside sumps. The public bathing beach there has been closed pre-emptively by the Suffolk Department of Health after heavy rainfalls, and shellfishing nearby is banned year round.

    For more than a decade, the only warning that something was amiss came from neighbors who would wander over to warn parents when they spotted children splashing in the polluted water. Now, a split-rail fence more or less encircles the creek, with notable, if ambiguously worded warnings put up by the village.

     Though environmentalists have for years been concerned about the water quality at Havens Beach, it was not until 2010, after human fecal coliform and other bacterial traces were found, that village officials got serious about correcting the situation. In fact, back in 2007, a demand by the Peconic Baykeeper organization resulted in angry pushback from village officials. Now, after as many as 15 years since the problems were first identified, work may begin soon on a two-pronged response that would reduce the amount of contamination.

    As envisioned, rebuilding the wetland there and installing a relatively new commercial filtration system should make a marked difference. Work may begin sometime this year once the proper permits are secured. Those involved inside and outside of village government are optimistic about the prospects and an end to the occasional closing of the swimming beach.

    The installation of a filter and a restored wetland cannot be the end, however, of the village’s commitment — and that of other towns — to protecting the bays and harbors. In the aggregate, the amount of contamination that leaks from outdated cesspools into marine ecosystems on the South Fork probably dwarfs the Havens Beach creek source by several orders of magnitude.

    From time to time, officials have talked about offering homeowners incentives to make septic-system improvements. As the Havens Beach work gets under way, it might be a good moment to revisit a regional approach to improving the health of all the area’s waterways.

   In a remarkable turn of events that could have implications on the South Fork, Williams-Sonoma may be blocked from returning to the California city that gave the cookware company its name if a new ordinance against “formula” retail stores is adopted.

    The $3 billion company, with 268 stores in the United States, first opened as a single shop in Sonoma in 1956, then moved to San Francisco. Now it has plans to open a store on the original site, but the city council is close to passing a moratorium on chain businesses while it works on permanent limits.

    A leading proposal would subject retailers with 10 or more outlets to a permit review in which the look and layout of their outlets would be considered. As the Sonoma Press-Democrat described it, formula chains would have to “promote diversity and variety, be consistent with Sonoma’s unique and historic characteristics, and be compatible with existing uses.”

    To some extent, permit review here already allows for an aesthetic look at commercial projects. However, the ideas from Sonoma seem much tougher and could offer guidance on strengthening our own rules. The process on the far side of the country bears watching.

   The East Hampton School District will soon receive a windfall from the Long Island Power Authority as a reward for the “green” aspects of its recent expansion projects. What it does with the money remains undecided, but one idea — to use it to help pay for solar or other renewable sources of energy — is a good one.

    East Hampton is essentially being recognized by the utility for being energy-miserly in installing better air-conditioning units, modern furnaces, insulation, and efficient lighting. Already, $197,000 is said to be in the mail, with more likely to come, as improved fixtures are put in and other improvements made. According to a school official, the portion of the money that is the result of improvements at the high school on Long Lane is the single largest amount for any building on Long Island.

    If the East Hampton School Board — and taxpayers — needed any more convincing that seeking alternative power sources is a sound long-term investment, it need look no further than the district’s monthly LIPA bill, which can reach $100,000 in the peak cooling months, though it usually is somewhat lower. Dumping the LIPA money into the general fund to pay, perhaps, for January’s power might be tempting, but doing so would squander a rare opportunity — both financial and educational since students might be inspired by the district’s conservation efforts.

    Schools and local governments all over the United States have been aggressively installing solar arrays and savoring the annual savings that accrue. In Smithtown, for example, a 110-kilowatt system peels some $27,000 off its central school district’s annual power bill. East Hampton Village has gone solar on its big and important Emergency Services Building with the help of federal grants and is enjoying the results. The Amagansett Fire Department has doubled down on its green credentials, recently augmenting solar panels on its main building with a windmill that pumps out electricity when the sun doesn’t shine.

    The East Hampton School District should leverage this one-time LIPA payout toward a long-term benefit.

Another month, another delay for the Surf Lodge. The Montauk nightspot, filled in season by crowds of revelers drawn east by its hipper-than-thou allure, is supposed to answer in East Hampton Town Justice Court to some 640 citations of code violations dating from the summer. But its day of reckoning has been put off until the end of January, and probably beyond that, if the trend continues.

    In some ways, the Surf Lodge seems a victim of its own success. No one, probably not even its owner, Jayma Cardoso, could have anticipated just how popular it would become. It is worth noting that the nightclub Ms. Cardoso took over is on a residentially zoned parcel where such businesses are no longer allowed unless they predate zoning, which hers does.

    We have heard from several Montauk residents who are worried that the ongoing delay will benefit the Surf Lodge in the form of reduced fines or stalling until a deal can be struck allowing certain variances from the code, perhaps retroactively. A back-room arrangement is not outside the realm of possibility considering that the town board at one point was ready to give the bar and restaurant the use of nearby, town-owned land for parking and that some town officials have inexplicably seemed sympathetic to a place many view as troublesome. Any further holdup is unacceptable.