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.

    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.

    Next Thursday, the East Hampton Town Board will convene a hearing on a set of changes to how the town handles applications for structures on farmland and nurseries. The proposed new rules bear close scrutiny.

    The revisions would move the authority over such structures from the planning and zoning boards to the architectural review board. While the A.R.B. already has some authority on farmland projects, it would take over sole review of many site plans, temporary greenhouses, farm stands (of up to 500 square feet), and buildings used for agriculture excluding animal husbandry. Instead of certified surveys of the property involved, the A.R.B. would accept a simple description and sketch. Site plan review, which deals with parking and impacts on nearby roads, would be taken away from the far more expert planning board. Going even further, the revisions would allow the A.R.B. chairman to issue waivers allowing the construction of storage structures for feed, fertilizer, crops, and machinery. This kind of unilateral procedure would not be in the community’s best interest.    

    The basic problem is that the architectural review board is the least rigorous and most informal of the town’s appointed land-use panels. It also makes it more difficult for the public to find out about its activities. Specializing in intentionally fast approvals under its pro-business chairman, Robert Schwagerl, A.R.B. agendas are posted only inside town offices and even then are often not available until it is too late for neighbors of pending projects to become informed about what is going on. In response to a question about this, Mr. Schwagerl said that providing advance public notice would slow down the board and interfere with applicants’ ability to make money in what may be a short season.    

     East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley’s proposal to move many farmland projects to the least accountable board has to be viewed in the context of what they believe is their mandate to “streamline” development review. It is unimaginable that the town would go back to the days when permits were handed out willy-nilly, but we fear this could be the result.

    At minimum, the public-notice procedures of the architectural review board should be significantly improved to allow for ample time for the public to learn what is before the board — and even to express its disapproval if need be.

    In the early 1980s, the East Hampton Town Board disbanded the Planning Department. While that does not seem to be the goal of today’s Town Hall leaders, a continued push to change the way the department operates should have those who favor environmental protection and solid land-use management concerned.

    The latest salvo came in a memorandum from a recently appointed member of the town zoning board of appeals to Marguerite Wolffsohn, who heads the Planning Department. In the memo, Don Cirillo expressed displeasure with the planners’ environmental review of building applications. Among other things, he described the planning staff as arbitrary and engaged in blackmailing applicants to do its bidding in order to secure permits. Ms. Wolffsohn fired back in her own memo, calling Mr. Cirillo’s allegations unfounded and defending her department’s professionalism.

     Much of Mr. Cirillo’s language echoed complaints heard over the years from lawyers involved in land-use projects for themselves or clients, as well as from people in related fields, so this is not new. What is unusual, however, is for a blunt, one-sided critique to come from an appointed official. It is unlikely that Mr. Cirillo was alone in his criticism, but he didn’t indicate whether he was speaking on behalf of others, even other members of the Z.B.A. Because the memo was so harsh and because Mr. Cirillo is in a position of influence as vice chairman of the Z.B.A., it is important that he disclose who his confidants are. We have asked him to do so and will report if and when he responds.

    Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, the deputy supervisor, have spoken out about what they see as failings in the town planning-review process and expressed their shared desire to see it streamlined. They have not commented publicly about Mr. Cirillo’s critique, but they have made no secret of their hostility for the Planning Department.

    That Mr. Cirillo is a former treasurer of the town Republican Committee and his wife is a current committee member is relevant here because Mr. Wilkinson, a Republican, is seeking re-election this fall. The memo may turn out to be a political liability, especially if it is consistent with the supervisor’s personal views.

    Among the several points Mr. Cirillo makes, his general assertion that the process is overly cumbersome in all matters is wrong. Most permits that require Planning Department review are processed in an effective and efficient manner; what does take longer — sometimes far longer — are requests for complicated projects, those for which environmental regulations come into play and those for the expansion of businesses in residential zones, among others.

    Yes, tricky applications are going to take a long time to review and the outcomes are not guaranteed. All of the town’s permit procedures, including the Planning Department’s, undoubtedly can be improved. But the memo’s declaration of war on sound environmental review and the professionalism of the town planners is dangerous, poorly thought through, and should be repudiated by those in Mr. Cirillo’s party if they are to have any credibility on these issues among the public. Voters like their East Hampton a certain way, and look dimly at those who favor the bulldozer’s blade over heritage and preservation. It is a message that all sides cannot lose sight of.

    The Napeague homeowners who sued the East Hampton Town Trustees and Town Board, claiming they own the beach in front of their houses from the high tide line down to the surf, and that they can, therefore, deny its use by the public, have incited an opinion hurricane, as might have been expected. They also seem to have raised more legal questions than they might have anticipated.

    The litigants trace their ownership of the beach to a trustees’ deed selling a swath of Napeague to Arthur Benson, the man who also bought Montauk in 1879. But a lot of sand has washed over (or off, as the case may be) the beach since that time, allowing legal ins and outs to arise. 

    How about adverse possession? It is a principle of real estate law that allows title to vest in those making use of someone else’s property when they meet specific criteria. The law differs from state to state, but the standards involve the length of time the property was used by someone who didn’t own it and whether the use was consistent, among many others. Is it therefore possible that a group acting on behalf of the public (the people who populate truck beach) can claim adverse possession and overrule private title?

    Then there seems to be a tricky matter about an easement; according to a knowledgeable source, the trustees obtained an assurance preserving public access to the beach in the Napeague Lane area at the time the upland was subdivided — a reservation, if you will. In addition, there are questions about whether the surveys showed ownership to mean high water, the common practice at the time. Then again, even if the homeowners’ deeds do show title below the high tide line, there’s the matter of whether they acted as owners of private property over which the public made use by blocking it at certain times, and whether they paid taxes on it.

    Although we have encouraged the town to find other places where East Hampton residents who do not live on the water can get on the beach, and although we cannot predict who will prevail, the lawsuit may force the trustees to enact further restrictions on driving on the beaches.

    The numbers of those with four-wheeler permits have grown to the point where they outweigh tradition and what the colonial-era town fathers had in mind when they set down the community’s rules and regulations. Conflicts are inevitable now, though court should be the last place to try to solve them. Even so, the trustees may have a few aces up their sleeves. Whether a legal victory will solve the long-term issue of overuse and abate the frustration of oceanfront property owners is an open question.

    The sperm whale calf that died on a rocky Montauk beach on July 30 did more than tell darkly of the mysteries of the deep. It brought to mind the awful time in April 2010, when a young humpback whale languished in the East Hampton surf. This time, the Montauk calf died relatively quickly, unlike 2010 when the larger humpback hung on for the better part of three days before succumbing to a shot from a high-powered rifle and a dose of phenobarbital.

    Now, as then, some people are critical of the time both cetaceans spent marooned before they died, saying a more humane, speedier method of dispatching the huge animals must be found.

    One expert in marine mammals said that quick, if bloody, methods for euthanizing whales could be used by those who know how, and could have worked in the Montauk whale’s case. He criticized the length of time it took before both whales died. Other experts have defended the official responses, pointing out that whale strandings are very rare and that no one has much experience with knowing what to do when one must be put down.

    Of course, this would not have been the case a century ago, when East Hampton’s whalemen still watched the surf for telltale spouts. The old killing implements hang in museums hereabouts, and, if someone still knew how they were used, even the largest whale could be dispatched in a hurry. In those days, the boatheader would creep to the front of a light, 28-foot, offshore whaleboat to kill the whale with a 15-foot-long, razor-sharp lance. In time, the men turned to so-called bomb guns, but they apparently never worked very well and the more sure results of an experienced hand and a well-honed blade were preferred.

    Those who work with whales say that a modern analog to the time-honored lance can be found — a means of more quickly dispatching these creatures when there is no hope of recovery. The federal government, whose responsibilities include marine mammals, and the Riverhead Foundation, which handles strandings on Long Island, should work with local, willing veterinarians to take care of these majestic animals more swiftly when their time has come.

    A war for the future of Lake Montauk is on, and the battle going on right now is about docks. No sooner did the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals allow one property owner to extend his pier farther into the lake, than another decided to take his chance. If this second applicant manages to convince the Z.B.A. of his case, expect more to follow.

    Lake Montauk, unlike East Hampton’s other waterways, is the responsibility of the town board; the town trustees manage our other bays and harbors. The trustees have long had a strict no-new-docks policy, and they have gone to great lengths to limit what happens along their shorelines.

    Lake Montauk, on the other hand, suffers from its general popularity and proximity to world-class fishing grounds. Unfortunately, upland conditions have added to the deterioration of the lake’s water quality as development has been allowed to proceed with only minimal limits. Another negative factor is a thick clay layer over the soil in some places, which helps speed waste from septic systems along in the groundwater, much of which enters the lake fairly rapidly.

    A few docks will not break the lake. However, taken together with all of its other stresses, plans for any new construction on or near this important waterway should be subject to the strictest environmental review, and existing violations should be prosecuted to the fullest.

    East Hampton Village took a small but significant step late last month in banning the use of certain plastic bags by retailers and restaurants. It is only the second local government in the State of New York to enact such a measure, after Southampton Village. Following the village board’s sensible decision, we hope that the Town of East Hampton will put similar restrictions in place.

    The new village law will give retailers until early next year to exhaust their supplies. Once the six-month grace period is up, however, places like the chain supermarket Waldbaum’s will have the option of providing customers with recycled-paper bags or expecting them to bring along their own bags, as some shoppers already do. Exempted are bags larger than 28-by-36 inches and those thick enough — 2.25 mils, for the record — to be used again.

    For example, the distinctive white-and-orange bags from the high-end grocery Citarella are likely to remain in circulation; the wispy ones from the Chinese takeout place off Newtown Lane as well as the supermarket will be no more. The Ladies Village Improvement Society, whose members recycle plastic sacks for use in the Bargain Books and Bargain Box shops, will, like other nonprofits, be exempt from compliance.

    Plastic bags are part of a much larger picture of the United States’ dependence on the fossil fuels used to make them. Global energy security is (or should be) a top concern for Washington. While a village like East Hampton can make only a tiny contribution to reducing this country’s dependence on imported oil, every bit helps. After the bags are used, they end up in landfills or flutter off into the environment, where they slowly break down into ever-smaller fragments and can then work their way into the marine and terrestrial food chains.

    Southampton Village led the way, and Southampton Town officials are in preliminary discussions about a townwide ban. Suffolk lawmakers have from time to time considered the possibility, but have failed to take action, though there is still hope. East Hampton Town, which must deal with the hundreds of thousands of these bags that pass through its waste facilities each year, would benefit directly from reducing the stream. It should consider a ban at its earliest convenience.

    East Hampton Village officials deserve a hearty cry of “Well done!” for this unabashedly bold move to help the planet.

    Tucked away in a recent report on the quality of Suffolk’s water is a striking image: a map showing in years how much time it takes for rainwater to get in the ground and reach eastern Long Island’s bays, streams, and harbors. The graphic is meaningful in that it illustrates just how long it takes for contaminants to move from one point to another, as well as the time it takes for pollution-reduction efforts to be reflected in surface water quality.

    For regional planners and elected officials, the map and the document from which it comes — the Suffolk Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan — make for a sobering reminder of the challenges ahead in protecting marine ecosystems and drinking water.

    For some time now, private organizations, like the Concerned Citizens of Montauk, Peconic Baykeeper, Nature Conservancy, and Group for the East End, have been raising the alarm, but responses, particularly in East Hampton Town, have been wanting. This may be because the town’s leaders have other priorities, lack  understanding of the scale of the risks, or have little willingness to take them on. Even longer term, rising sea level is predicted to reduce supplies of potable waters on both the North and South Forks.

    Fortunately, the crisis is not imminent; the county report indicates that groundwater will remain adequate until 2030. But two decades can come and go all too quickly. And in some coastal locations, the demand for water may exceed the limited and shallow freshwater aquifer more rapidly than in other areas of the East End.

    Adding to a sense of urgency is the report’s finding that tests have shown increasing levels of contaminants — nitrates, volatile organic compounds, and pesticides — over the last two decades. The study’s authors recommend continued implementation of groundwater quality regulations, new rules to reduce the impact of future development, improving and monitoring wastewater from existing houses and businesses, and, perhaps most important, open space protection. This recommendation is described in the report as the most effective means of protecting ground and surface waters. No news there, but a welcome reminder.    

    Immediate testing and protections for the roughly 28 percent of Suffolk residents who get water from private wells is suggested. Also on a to-be-considered list are a county law mandating odd-even lawn watering days, mandating sensors that can shut off landscape irrigation when it rains, tiered billing rates to encourage conservation, and other water-wise measures. The study’s authors call for Suffolk to commit funding for the staff and technical resources necessary to protect ground and surface waters for future generations.

    Unfortunately, East Hampton Town appears to be wading in a groundwater problem of its own. Its septic wastewater treatment plant on Springs-Fireplace Road has been cited by the state for discharge violations. As the town board moves to correct this, board members are likely to become more focused than they have been on water quality, maybe even taking the time to sit down and read the county report and take stock of its recommendations.

    Groundwater may move gradually, but government can be even slower. This is an issue that cannot wait for another day or a different political or economic climate. The time for constructive, effective steps on water protection for the long term is now.

    If buck-passing were an Olympic sport, East Hampton Town would get the gold. That, at least, is the consensus of an increasing number of Montauk residents and others irked by the wild popularity of several restaurants and watering holes and all that comes along with them.

    East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson has been criticized for telling neighbors of one particularly troubled area that they should ignore the noise and traffic because the peak summer season is nearly over. Councilwoman Theresa Quigley has chimed in that she likes seeing young, cash-spending folks around. Moreover, the pair insist there is nothing much that the town itself can do to reduce annoyances. Others tell beleaguered residents to shut their windows and turn on the air-conditioners — if they have them — to drown out the noise. But this welcome-wagon attitude is in stark contrast to that of East Hampton Village, where officials managed to shut down a party palace on a residential street before it even held its first event.

    Gilt City, an online discount-deal marketplace, had hoped to run a series of dinners, yoga classes, and film screenings at a house it rented on Fithian Lane. Learning of the company’s plans, the village convened an emergency meeting at which its board of trustees decided to seek a court injunction. That’s all it took for the Gilt City people to decamp for an alternative location in Southampton Town. The village didn’t even have to have its day in court.

    In East Hampton Town, by contrast, pre-existing businesses in residential zones, such a restaurants, hotels, and inns, have been allowed to expand illegally. While this is well known, Town Hall has turned a deliberately blind eye, refusing again and again to enforce many laws on its own books — many having to do with capacity, lighting, and, of course, parking. Now that the success of these sketchy operations has spawned traffic, noise, garbage, and other problems for neighbors — and town police — the town board has made tepid excuses and further averted its gaze.

    Unfortunately for those who live near these mostly seasonal businesses, these and other quality-of-life issues have become politicized. Democrats have been speaking out in an effort to damage the supervisor, a Republican who is seeking re-election in November. This could have the effect of delaying any meaningful relief, as the supervisor and Ms. Quigley might well be loath to do anything that could be (wrongly, in our view) perceived as giving in to the other side.

    As the village’s swift reaction in Gilt City and similar matters show, there is plenty that can be done to rein in improper commercialization or expansion of businesses on residential properties, as well as nuisances involving noise and cars. Unlike Gilt City, a restaurant or nightclub may have pre-standing legal rights to be where it is, but the town could use temporary, police-emergency parking restrictions to limit overflow crowds — as has been done in the village — and change local laws so that fines for violations have real and substantial impact. The town board needs to ignore political posturing and do the right thing for the residents of these plagued neighborhoods.

    Get tough, East Hampton; it’s about time. As the supervisor himself said, there are only so many weekends of summer left — and taxpayers should be able to enjoy every minute of them, no matter where their houses happen to be.