The handwriting appears to be on the wall for the Bay Street Theatre. Though it has had a very good run in its original location in Sag Harbor, the Village of Southampton is making an offer to lure it to take over the Parrish Art Museum building on Job’s Lane, and the offer sounds too good to refuse.

    The Parrish is to move to its impressive new home this summer, and the old building, which Southampton Village owns, will be in need of a tenant. The village is said to be ready to give the theater a lease for as long as 50 years and generous terms. Southampton might even sweeten the deal with promises of an associated cafe, outdoor theater, and a 400-seat main stage, with ample and accessible nearby parking.

    But what would be good for Southampton Village would be a loss for Sag Harbor. As State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., the village’s attorney, said at a Jan. 5 forum, the theater helped spark something of a revival for the village when it opened at the foot of Long Wharf some 21 years ago. He called its being in Sag Harbor critical to the economic health of the village and said he would do what he could to help keep it there. Former Sag Harbor Mayor Gregory Ferraris, who is now on the Bay Street board of directors, agreed it was not a coincidence that the “success of Sag Harbor has coincided with the success of the Bay Street Theatre.”

    Ultimately, money is what has motivated the theater’s board to grapple with a possible new home. Bay Street pays its Sag Harbor landlord $185,000 a year in rent, with increases every year, and it has sizable additional expenses. If it can reduce the rent, while taking over a larger theater than it has now, and in a location with a larger population base from which to draw patrons, so much the better. Nonetheless, for Sag Harbor, it would be a bitter curtain that falls.

   Advocates of a free and open Internet rose up last week in protest of bills in Washington that would greatly increase the government’s ability to police what is called online piracy. Citizens called and e-mailed their representatives, and Web sites went dark for a day to make a point. The political power of the Internet made news, and the bills were sent back to committee.

     Arguing for Congressional action, entertainment industry lobbyists say that illegal file-sharing costs them billions in unmade sales and harms the United States economy in lost jobs.

    The House bill, SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act), and a related bill in the Senate, PIPA (the Protect Intellectual Property Act), were intended to curb rogue viewing and downloading of copyrighted content, such as movies and music files. Opponents say SOPA could be used to unfairly punish sites, such as Google, for simply providing access to other sites, particularly sites offshore, where protected material is available illegally. Federal digital take-down orders could black out whole swaths of the Web, they fear, in an unprecedented and massive new form of censorship.

    There is no question that the recording industry in particular has been hurt by music’s move to computers. During the decade that file-sharing became popular, record sales declined sharply. But piracy (if you can call it that) is not entirely to blame. Where consumers once shelled out $15 for a compact disc, they now can pay just 99 cents for a favorite song. And you can listen to a universe of online music for free on a computer, eliminating the need to buy discs or to steal. For the movie studios, the loss of revenue has not come so much from people downloading new releases but from the collapse of videotape and DVD sales. Consumers can easily — and legally — watch movies or listen to music at home over inexpensive devices, and that’s what’s really putting the crimp on content producers.

    According to a widely cited research paper, online searches for movie piracy sites tailed down in recent years as inexpensive subscription-based services, such as Netflix, took off. So if illegal downloading isn’t the big threat the studios and music-sellers say it is, why the push for help from Washington?

    The backstory is that the studios’ contracts with Netflix and other streaming video services will be up for renegotiation in short order. Subscription costs are expected to jump, and this is expected to cause renewed consumer interest in seeing movies without paying for them. Hollywood, with the help of Washington, is trying to get out in front of a rush to find lower-cost or free entertainment. It won’t work.

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.

   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.

    Voter turnout in the Town of East Hampton on Nov. 8 was about average for a nonpresidential year — about 43 percent of the 15,929 people registered. Given the standard by which such things are measured nationally, turnout as a percentage of the voting-age population, East Hampton did a bit worse than might have been expected — about 39 percent — but was still a point or two above the national average.

    The local registration figure may have been boosted by those part-time residents who register here but were not counted in the 2010 census. Anecdotally, it seems that an ever-increasing number of people live here part time, year round, commuting into the city for work a couple of days a week but considering East Hampton home. This assumption is bolstered by the hundreds of absentee ballots in the most recent election.

    Turnout is to be encouraged, whatever the outcome, which is one reason why in the immediate post-election period we noted with displeasure something the East Hampton Republican Committee chairwoman said. Trace Duryea, who worked in East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson’s re-election campaign, told a reporter that she was disappointed in the town for not coming out more forcefully for her candidate, while she dismissed those who voted against him as thoughtless partisans. Such comments do little to dignify the often arduous political process and belittle those who went to the polls.

    Voters should be thanked for their participation, no matter how they voted. 

    Once again, a landowner is trying to expand a commercial use of a residential property, and once again, it appears that some East Hampton Town officials are eager to help him do it.

    In this most recent example, the applicant wants to move a business structure closer to Montauk Highway at the intersection of Sayre’s Path in Wainscott, rebuild it, and add a stand-alone house at its rear. Michael Davis, who is well-known for developing houses, mostly in Sagaponack and Wainscott, has undertaken the project, calling it Wainscott Wombles.

    At a recent East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting, Mr. Davis’s representatives said the existing building, once a diner and most recently a high-fashion retail space, would be moved and converted into a two-story office building. The gravel parking lot would be replaced and beautified, and the redevelopment would echo the attractive residences Mr. Davis builds, bringing a welcome upgrade to the entrance to Wainscott, they said.    

    The problem facing the town is that what Mr. Davis is proposing is prohibited under East Hampton law. The law bans the expansion of uses that do not conform to zoning, that is, for example, a restaurant in a residential zone. The rule is meant to discourage commercial sprawl and protect the interests of residential neighbors.

    At the meeting, Mr. Davis’s lawyer argued in a way that would make George Orwell proud: Because a business exists on the property its commercial use trumps the underlying zoning of it as residential.

    Mr. Davis should have been directed to the zoning board of appeals to seek variances from the law to allow the expansion as well as the house, a banned second use. Instead, based on a determination by the East Hampton Town Building Department that two uses — the business and a house — would be okay on the lot, he was able to go directly to the planning board. We have to wonder how Tom Prieato, the town’s top building inspector, was prevailed upon to make this flawed and controversial call.

    At least one neighbor, a lawyer, has vowed to sue if the project goes ahead as proposed; his would appear to be a strong case. It remains to be seen how the application fares with the planning board, whose members heard about it officially for the first time on Dec. 7. The legal issues appear to be clear-cut, but in the current environment, in which officials have looked the other way on other questionable projects, anything could happen.

    The pending one-month suspension of Larry Penny, the East Hampton Town director of natural resources, on what may be exaggerated charges, does not bode well for the environment here. Though Mr. Penny has the right to a hearing to contest the claims, the outcome appears preordained, and the town board’s move against Mr. Penny seems a precursor to his firing.

    Having presented voters with tax cuts cobbled together by tapping money from surpluses, the town board knows it will have to balance the books sooner or later by trimming expenses. This makes Mr. Penny’s income, roughly $100,000 a year plus benefits, a tempting target. That the board’s majority has in the last two years essentially declared themselves at war with environmentalists provides ample reason for concern that motivations beyond Mr. Penny may be at play.

    If the board acts quickly to solidify the Natural Resources Department in his anticipated absence, however, most fears would be allayed. The town board needs to name a temporary, qualified replacement to take Mr. Penny’s position should the suspension come to pass. If the board does not do so, it will become evident that the majority views the Natural Resources Department as an afterthought or impediment. And, if Mr. Penny is gone for good, the stakes become much higher.

    If the town board is being straight with the community about what it sees as flaws in Mr. Penny’s job performance and fires him, it must quickly hire someone whom it believes will do a more effective job of protecting our natural resources. And, if it’s even just for 30 days, someone must always be watching out for the town’s environment.

    New York State has adopted a relatively aggressive position on climate change and offered a number of resources to local governments. Unfortunately, few Long Island villages or towns have taken advantage of them. Though Albany is often seen as an adversary in these parts, the impacts of a warming atmosphere are predicted to be severe and complex, and local officials will need every bit of help they can get in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and crafting policies.

    A tepid response to one state initiative, called Climate Smart Communities, illustrates lack of foresight on Long Island. In Suffolk County, only the towns of Babylon, Brookhaven, Islip, and Smithtown and Port Jefferson Village have signed on. This is despite the program’s making municipalities eligible for faster-track state and federal money for low-carbon technology, efficiency grants, and energy conservation. Joining requires local governments to name an energy coordinator or committee and to develop a climate plan that includes identifying sources of greenhouse gases and setting goals for their reduction and reducing energy consumption by residents and public services. Solar panels have gone up on municipal buildings here and there, which is a sign of hope, but that is far from enough.

    Trying to stave off climate change and its effects is only part of the challenge. Based on what already is known, there will be unavoidable flooding, drought, extreme temperatures, and rising sea level. Local governments will need to factor these risks and others into their decision-making. For example, in much of East Hampton Town and in low-lying parts of Southampton, whatever coastal construction is allowed now will largely determine future calls for infrastructure improvements and erosion control — which could entail massive costs to be borne by taxpayers in the future.

    Climate change and its impacts are going to be the biggest challenges that will face public officials over the coming decades. The sooner Long Island’s towns and villages start working on sober, comprehensive policies the better. Joining with other governments across New York to share resources and knowledge is one place to start.

    After years of legal struggle, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, Bloomberg Markets magazine got what could be the scoop of the decade. While Americans were squabbling over the 2008 $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, the Federal Reserve was secretly handing out more than 11 times that amount at a ridiculously low interest rate to the nation’s biggest banks. In fact, TARP distributed far less than its authorized amount: $392 billion.

    The $7.77 trillion in loans only recently brought to light were supposed to keep the financial system running, and, by most accountings, they were successful. Not only did banks survive, according to Bloomberg, they made money on the deal. The big problem was — and it is a startling indictment of the ties between Washington and high finance — apparently no one in Congress knew of the loans while new rules intended to prevent subsequent collapses were being debated.

    In the Bloomberg piece, the cost of this was made clear: “. . . taxpayers,” the authors said, “paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.” The banks, which argued against disclosing the loans, said that admitting to taking the money might have undermined confidence in them as institutions. This might have been a good thing.

    Let’s pause for a moment to consider together just how much money the Fed doled out at .01 percent interest: The $7.77 trillion loaned from its so-called discount window was more than half the value of everything produced in the United States in 2009. Unbelievably, the total is in the ballpark of the value of all the gold ever mined in all of human history at the metal’s 2011 sky-high prices. Consider, too, that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — combined — have cost $1.1 trillion over the course of the last 10 years.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, Ben Bernanke, the Fed’s chairman, having tried to fight disclosure of the loans and commitments, has accused Bloomberg of getting it wrong. In a quibbling letter to House and Senate leaders, he said the reporting was filled with “numerous errors and misrepresentations,” and said that, at peak, the daily loans only reached $1.5 trillion anyway. Congress had access to monthly reports about the total borrowing, he said. Bloomberg has said it stands by its reporting and issued a point-by-point rebuttal of the Fed chairman’s criticisms.

    Mr. Bernanke sidestepped the entire issue of whether lawmakers were improperly kept in the dark about this huge handout as they considered the scale of the crisis and possible financial reforms — which did not come. Nor do the chairman’s objections explain why he and the banks sought so long and hard to avoid releasing the details — long after the chance of any hypothetical damage to the banks’ reputations was past.

    In retrospect, it would be laughable that the nation was convulsed over the much-smaller TARP if the implications for the credibility of our government were not so serious. Members of George W. Bush’s administration, which inaugurated TARP, were not let in on the Fed’s big secret. The net effect of the clandestine loans is that a real reckoning has never come for the giant banks, which ran up the housing bubble through collateralized debt obligations and other schemes. Inadequate regulations to prevent future financial catastrophes have remained in place because the people who would write new rules — Congress — knew nothing about what was going on.

    Not only are the giant banks now too big to fail, they are too big to regulate, according to some of the Fed’s managers. One hopes that, armed with the new information and knowing to what lengths the Fed and the banks went to avoid disclosure, Congress will look again at effective control of the financial industry. Regardless of what is done, however, it is apt to be too late for those Americans who have lost their jobs and their homes.

The East Hampton Town Board’s new interest in how Cablevision franchise fees are apportioned is a good idea, with the possibility that the hefty sum might be spread more equitably.

    By longstanding practice, nearly all the money the town gets annually from Cablevision goes to LTV, which provides public-access and educational television and broadcasts many town meetings and work sessions. The town board held a hearing last Thursday on Cablevision’s use of the town’s right of way for transmission lines, but much of the real action has taken place in private discussions between the town and the cable company. The town board has been looking to get more money for allowing Cablevision’s Optimum division to have a near-monopoly on television service and a dominant share of Internet use.

    The 2012 town budget anticipates $850,000 as the franchise fee, a more-than-40-percent jump over the amount paid to the town in 2011. The figure is based on 5 percent of Cablevision’s reported revenue in East Hampton Town, up from 3 percent.

    Whatever the actual sum turns out to be for 2012, the thinking around Town Hall lately is that the pass-through to LTV could be reduced. Until a review of LTV’s finances was conducted earlier this year, the town board (and the public) had just about no idea how the money was spent. The board asked for several clarifications of the data LTV submitted.

    With the town’s having cut other social-welfare, education, and cultural services, it seems only reasonable that the size of LTV’s share should also be on the table. Though its supporters are sure to disagree, the outsize payments to LTV that come with few strings attached and minimal oversight appear questionable.