Irene, the hurricane that became a tropical storm as it reached Long Island, did more than knock out power for days and topple rot-weakened trees. For many in the hospitality and retail trades here, its impact was a tough hit in an already tough year. Ask most any shopkeeper on the South Fork how their summer 2011 went and more times than not they will say it was okay until the storm warnings came. Then, as one in Montauk told us this week, things just dropped off a cliff. Customers left as the forecast worsened, he said, and just didn’t come back.

    Much has been made of the additional costs the Long Island Power Authority will have to absorb or pass on to its customers for restoring power after long outages. LIPA has set the figure at $176 million. County and state lawmakers are looking into whether the utility was adequately prepared for what turned out to be a modest blow. Expect a fair amount of grandstanding at a hearing today in Mineola in which a New York Senate committee will consider what LIPA did and what it could do differently next time.

    Likely to be unasked and unanswered tomorrow is what can be done to help those businesses that had been depending on strong Labor Day receipts to help turn a profit. As residents finish their back-to-school purchases and as holiday shopping looms, they might think about keeping their dollars and cents on the South Fork whenever possible.

    Erosion is an issue on the bay beaches as well as on the ocean, for example, where Mulford Lane meets Gardiner’s Bay in Amagansett. Three houses there are either in the water or about to be. One, on stilts, is not habitable. The owners of another want to replace it with a somewhat larger house and to protect it with a stone revetment.

    The work would require several variances, in addition to permits, perhaps most notably to allow a new erosion-control structure in a place where they are specifically prohibited by the town’s recently passed coastal erosion hazard code. Although the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals has held a hearing on the application, it is being revised, apparently so the beach in front of the third house, on a smaller lot to the northeast, can also be armored.

    People who own waterfront houses usually would want to do whatever they could to keep them from falling into the sea. This is understandable. It is not, in many cases, in the public interest to allow them to do so. A revetment in this case probably would help the owners save their houses, at least for the near future. But it would mean the disappearance of whatever beach remains there, which is, of course, public. This is a high cost and presents a difficult dilemma for the zoning board.

    That erosion is severe at Mulford Lane is an understatement. It is exacerbated by the surrounding upland (if you can call it that) which is as flat as a prairie. These three houses were built at a time when local laws were lax with regard to potential erosion and allowed them to be sited where none should be.

    The Z.B.A. should deny the application. Perhaps the matter should more properly be something for the town board to consider and ask whether the properties should be condemned and the structures removed. In doing so, the town would save the homeowners great long-term expense, or great grief, and, with the houses gone, be able to preserve access across the land for the public and future generations.

    The question for Amagansett voters in Tuesday’s balloting is whether to authorize the fire district to buy the two-acre Pacific East property adjacent to the firehouse for the future construction of a separate ambulance facility. The commissioners have said there is no way the expansion they envision could be accommodated on the land the district owns now — 4.7 acres.

    That the commissioners are thinking ahead is laudable. The number of ambulance calls continues to escalate and the Fire Department’s drivers and emergency medical technicians deserve the highest praise. But we are opposed to the deal for several reasons.

    Foremost among them is that no government agency — and the fire district is just that — should be given the green light on a proposal of this scale without first laying out the particulars in detail. If the district gets the okay to buy the property, it will then ask voters for the money to put up a building. Once having agreed to buy the land, it would become difficult for residents to put the brakes on a construction project.

    There also is the possibility that taxpayers would be paying too much if the $2.8 million deal goes through. Pacific East last operated as a restaurant open to the public in the summer of 2007. Under the town code, this would mean its rights as a pre-existing, nonconforming business in a residential zone had lapsed. East Hampton Town’s top building inspector thinks otherwise, however, although he has yet to provide documentation to support his belief. It is unlikely that the property, wedged between the firehouse on one side and the Amagansett Farmers Market on the other, would fetch nearly as much money if it were sold on the residential, rather than commercial, market.

    On Tuesday, in hastily called balloting, Amagansett Fire District voters will decide whether or not to absorb a tax hike to buy what may be overpriced land, while at the same time signaling an inclination to approve the unknown costs of a new building. Voting no would allow time for the commissioners to address the open questions and to give the public stronger assurances of their implied “trust us.”

    If someone took the time to make a list of the businesses East Hampton Town residents complain about all the time, one thing would become clear: The bulk of the trouble spots are in locations with residential zoning.

    Those who follow local government, or who live near one of these places, can point fingers if they like. Our intention is not to name names; rather, it is to point out that it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, and this may surprise some people, the town’s own laws were written to gradually make development consistent with good planning.

    Tension between commerce and homeowners is not new. When the East Hampton Town zoning code first was adopted, in the early 1960s, so-called pre-existing, nonconforming uses, such as restaurants, bars, delis, and repair shops, were supposed to fade away over time. More intensive-purposed properties would be centered where the appropriate infrastructure, such as parking lots, road drainage, street lighting, and public transportation, was provided. The basic idea was that there were appropriate places for houses and appropriate places for things that were not houses. No great mystery there.

    What is new, although it reaches back from the present administration to prior administrations, is a sense in Town Hall that pre-existing, nonconforming businesses should not only be grandfathered, that is, allowed to remain as they are, but should be encouraged to grow and become permanent. This violates both the East Hampton Town Code and widely accepted notions of livable communities. The net effect of the easy-does-it approach is suburban sprawl, with low-key, helter-skelter businesses getting even more entrenched and the major roads between the South Fork’s villages and hamlets increasingly commercialized. There are ways to combine commercial and residental development, sure, so-called smart growth concepts, but that is not what we are talking about here. Unmanaged, it might better be termed dumb growth.

    The record shows that the Town Building Department has been far too willing to certify pre-existing, nonconforming uses in residential zones on the scantiest of excuses and absent of any documentation. If the department were to faithfully follow the town code, it would demand better evidence that such uses had the right to remain. Moreover, the department has repeatedly failed to refer requests for building permits to the planning board for site plan review, as required in many cases.

    This stands in stark contrast to one of the overarching goals of  East Hampton’s 2005 comprehensive plan update, to maintain and restore the town’s rural and semirural character. Another objective listed in the plan is to protect neighborhoods from incompatible development. The plan was the product of more than four years’ work by elected officials and scores of dedicated citizens who attended meeting after meeting.

    Taming certain commercial outliers is part of what would make East Hampton a better place to live. We wonder what it will take to shift the balance back.

    Amagansett residents gave themselves a tax increase last week. On Oct. 3, 140 people who live in that hamlet’s fire district trooped to the firehouse to support a bond deal that will add something on the order of $50 to $100 a year, depending on assessments, to their property tax bills. Similarly, higher school and library levies have also passed in recent rounds of voting. Considered together, these votes suggest, at the very least, that no widespread well of anti-tax sentiment exists here.

    Of course, fire districts and schools are like mom and apple pie, and each has strongly motivated constituencies to help guarantee budget-vote successes. Still, we can’t help but notice that when given a choice, local residents have time and again approved tax hikes.

    It seems that residents’ willingness to pay more when asked for something they think is worthwhile is at variance with the tax-cutting obsession that now reigns in East Hampton Town Hall. No one likes paying higher taxes. But it also appears that when residents perceive a good cause they are willing to vote yes with their hard-earned dollars and cents.

    Tuesday’s East Hampton Town Board work session marked a welcome shift in the way discussions with the public at such meetings have been going.

    The subject was the possibility of establishing a new bathing beach with 100 parking spaces on town-owned land off Dolphin Drive on Napeague. Unlike some proposals, which have emerged fully formed from Town Hall’s inner sanctum, this is a very, very preliminary proposal. Faced with the need for more access to ocean beaches, the town board has revived an idea for a protected beach, with lifeguards and toilets, which would take some of the pressure off existing beaches.

    Members of a nearby homeowners’ association and others expressed their concerns, including one environmental advocate who saw problems ahead. Instead of being greeted with the usual bluster and defensiveness by elected officials, those attending were allowed to make their points.

    The chances for a new beach may be low, given opposition and the supposed difficulty of obtaining certain state approvals. Nonetheless, the tone of Tuesday’s discussion was exemplary. Certainly, with the town election only about four weeks away, board members were likely to be on their best behavior. This example of civility, however, of an honest give-and-take, should be allowed to continue beyond Nov. 8.

    Occupy Wall Street may seem an odd name for a protest movement, yet the mass assembly of angry and frustrated people in downtown Manhattan — and increasingly in other cites around the country — appears to be this month’s big story and is drawing more support with every passing day. As the protest neared the conclusion of its third week, large labor unions were stepping up and offering support. Today, thousands of activists are expected in Washington’s Freedom Square. Where this all will lead is unknown, but it surely is significant.

    The concerns that motivate many of the protesters have been mischaracterized in some of the media as vague. This is as much an indictment of the corporate news outlets as it is of those in the streets. Yes, the goals of the Occupy Wall Street encampments are many, but their complexity should not be dismissed as evidence that the people who are expressing these ideas are naive.

    A common theme is evident enough: The protesters are saying that the power structure of the United States has shifted too far toward corporate interests and the wealthiest among us and that the individuals and forces that wrecked the economy have not been held accountable. It is a clear and accurate message — if you take the time to hear it.

    The commissioners of the Amagansett Fire District apparently believe they are in a race against time in seeking voter approval on Oct. 4 for buying a former restaurant property next door to the firehouse. Unfortunately, with a public meeting on the subject Tuesday and the balloting to follow only a week later, the district’s taxpayers will hardly have enough time to weigh the pros and cons of the plan. The process should be slowed down.

    The urgency appears to be misplaced, or at best, unexplained. The two-acre site has been listed with real estate brokers since 2007 with its price steadily declining as no buyers were really interested. Moreover, the building’s status as a viable restaurant in a residential zone is questionable. The value of the property would be further reduced if it could be shown to have lost its pre-existing, nonconforming status.

    At the core of the questions we expect the commissioners to answer Tuesday is what voter approval of the $2.8-million price they apparently have already agreed to would mean for the tax rate. The old Pacific East restaurant building would be removed and a new ambulance facility built there, but the public hasn’t heard what the estimated costs for all this would be. Nor is there time for objective vetting of any numbers the commissioners put forth on Tuesday.

    Worth considering, too, is the fact that the East Hampton Fire Department operates from a far smaller site than Amagansett’s already-roomy 4.7-acre lot. East Hampton houses police, fire, and ambulance squads on 2.1 acres. The Amagansett commissioners have pointed out that the department uses the field behind the firehouse for helicopter landings from time to time so that putting an ambulance barn back there would seem to be off the table. Could a redesign of the existing firehouse solve the department’s space needs? We don’t know, but the taxpayers might like an analysis of this alternative before being asked to vote.

    Some residents have objected to the plan on aesthetic grounds, saying that Amagansett Main Street should not be home to another brick hulk. These people might be mollified if the commissioners were to put forth a conceptual drawing.

    No one likes to be in the position of saying no to the extremely dedicated volunteer firefighters and emergency medical technicians, but too many questions surround this plan. There is simply not enough time for these important considerations to be fully worked through by those who will be paying the bill. A longer period of review would benefit all concerned.

    By declining to review a challenge to East Hampton Town’s strict limit on the types of ferries that can dock here, the United States Supreme Court last week put an apparent end to a long-fought struggle. This is an important victory for East Hampton residents.

    The Supreme Court agreed with a lower court that had ruled the town had the right to regulate ferries and had said East Hampton’s 1998 law preventing car-carrying and high-speed ferries from docking here did not violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The appeals court had ruled, in effect, that local restrictions designed to control traffic or protect certain areas of town from added congestion and parking problems were reasonable.

    Common sense appears to have prevailed in this matter. Summer on the South Fork is busy enough, and local governments clearly have an obligation to citizens to do what they can to gain the upper hand. At least as far as ferries are concerned, residents can breath a sigh of relief.

    The East Hampton Town Board’s decision on Thursday to buy the four-acre Northwest Kennels property off Swamp Road in Northwest Woods was the right call and something many residents would like to see a lot more of.

    With the board’s 4-0 vote in favor last week, an $837,500 deal for the property will soon be signed. The land borders on already-preserved woodland and is at a headwater of Northwest Creek. There is talk of providing residents with racks or even enclosed storage for kayaks and other small human-powered watercraft, as well as opening up a trail head to allow visitors additional access to the county and state parkland nearby. The price was right, and the agreement seems good for all concerned.

    Looking back further, however, it is reasonable to lament that there have not been more such purchases recently. Following the disastrous misappropriation of community preservation money during the Bill McGintee years, land buys were forced to a halt. The program had to be put on ice while the town’s accounts were put in order after Mr. McGintee’s resignation. But some of the stalling may have been attributable to the town board majority’s sympathy for the view that more of our vacant land should go on the real estate market. Spending under the Republican town board dwindled, hitting an all-time low in 2010 of $6.3 million, while at the same time the fund’s revenues were increasing. Only two parcels were acquired that year, and most of the money actually went to debt payments for earlier land buys.

    There is reason for hope. An audit of the community preservation fund’s income and expenses for 2008 through 2010 is in the final stages. With the dollars and cents finally sorted out, the town board should see no more impediments in what is now an excellent time, given the economic doldrums and depressed prices, for a spending spree on preservation.

    The East Hampton Town Board must become active buyers of suitable vacant land whenever it becomes available. It is reasonable to expect that the real estate slump will not last forever and that when the next boom comes, today’s deals will seem like bargains.

    Land the town does not preserve will be seen as a missed opportunity and a long-term liability for whichever political party fails to act. Going into the run-up to the 2011 election, residents should demand a renewed commitment to the preservation program.