There was a time when giving directions to someone from out of the area might involve telling them to turn left at the green pond. So odd was the color of East Hampton’s Town Pond that it could not be mistaken for anyplace else. When it turned suddenly bright green, the shade of perhaps grass seedlings, early Saturday, having bloomed into an unearthly hue overnight, police were called. A report appeared on the Internet. Hypotheses were hatched. It was, in a slow news week, the biggest thing that happened on the South Fork, unless you consider Justin Beiber’s visit to a Southampton surf shop more noteworthy.

    From where we sit, the fuss seems all too much. The pond has been green before, though the causes are slightly less than natural. Though East Hampton Village has adopted organic methods for the grassed areas that surround the pond, homeowners in its modest drainage basin have not necessarily followed suit. Our suspicion that the right combination of temperature, nutrients in the form of super-powered lawn care products, and just enough rain combined to produce a vigorous algae bloom. As the days passed, some of the algae died, and the chartreuse tone was muted.

    Accurate or not, the algae bloom is our story and we are sticking with it. However, we cannot begrudge others their runs to perhaps more entertaining explanations, such as one man who posted online his one-word explanation: pesto.

    About a year ago, an outcry greeted a proposal to erect a wind turbine on a tree farm off Long Lane in East Hampton. Now, a second property owner has plans to build one nearby, but this time it is unlikely to spark the same degree of opposition.

    The Iacono farm, famous for its chickens, eggs, holiday geese, and homemade cookies, has alerted East Hampton Town that it will soon put an electricity-generating windmill on its seven acres. We say alerted because the family’s lawyer has told the town that the State Agricultural and Markets Law supersedes the town zoning code and that the Iaconos can do what they like in this regard. Apparently, notifying the town board was a courtesy.

    When the first Long Lane turbine was announced, opponents worried most about how the 120-foot tower on which it rotated would look in the farmland landscape — much of which had been preserved with public dollars in development-rights buys. Others, especially those with houses close by, worried about noise and whether the spinning blades would make an aggravating whir. From what we have observed, these concerns were overstated. The anticipated problems turned out to be relatively innocuous.

     While the Long Lane turbine and the one now planned may be limited in their impact on views and neighbors, other alternative-energy projects might not be. Officials have known for a while now that East Hampton Town’s rules for windmills and the like are deficient, but they have not made a priority of revamping them. In the absence of a thorough, publicly discussed policy, it could prove impossible for property owners to obtain permission for small-scale turbines on residential land, where town rules unarguably apply.

    This newest proposal is a reminder that a comprehensive alternative-energy statute remains to be written.

    Come summer, access to South Fork beaches becomes a sore point for those without requisite parking permits. As in past years, East Hampton taxpayers and those who spend big bucks for summer rentals cannot obtain the coveted passes if they drive rented vehicles; the town assigns them only to vehicles registered at local addresses. These residents believe they should be able to park at the beaches, just like those of us who own our vehicles. It is difficult to think of a reason they are wrong. The question is how to accommodate them.

    Under the present policy, beach parking stickers are marked by hand with each vehicle’s license plate number. This is supposed to prevent permits from being shared or sold illegally, and the system usually works. However, given the cost of automobile ownership, especially in urban areas like New York City, where parking can be difficult and expensive, holding onto a vehicle for the sole purpose of summer use doesn’t make a lot of sense even if you own a house here.

    Tight control of beach stickers is largely a response to overflowing beach parking lots, especially at popular ocean spots. Forget about finding a space at Ditch Plain, Atlantic Avenue, or Indian Wells this weekend; they are all going to be taken by 11 a.m. The new Hamptons Free Ride shuttle is a nice try, but it is unlikely to attract enough people to make a difference.

    It’s a conundrum for officials, but one they should try to solve. If East Hampton could see a way to open a new bathing beach, with lifeguards and restrooms, it would take the pressure off and allow the town to be a bit more flexible in its permit policy.

    There are very few town-owned parcels on the oceanfront that would be appropriate for beach parking, however, while the cost of condemning private property to build more parking lots would seem to be a nonstarter. Or is it? Perhaps the time has come to think about whether taxpayers would approve a costly town purchase for ocean access if it were put to a vote or if there was willingness to tap the community preservation fund for the purpose. It would be expensive, but it might just be worth it.

    In the grand scheme of things it probably doesn’t matter a fig, but to our ear, a new Z sound in Amagansett is just plain wrong. Sad to say, we hear it increasingly everywhere — a grating “Ama-ganz-it.”

    People don’t want to be told they are mispronouncing a word, so most of us avoid offering corrections. A woman of our acquaintance did just that recently, however, and was met with an indignant response along the lines of, “I’ve been coming here for 10 years, and I’ve always said it that way!”

     Where did this come from? When did it start? And what’s wrong with the letter S?

    Spending cuts put in place during 2010 have given East Hampton Town an estimated $11 million budget surplus, which will be used to help pay off the internal fund deficits created in the financially disastrous years when Bill McGintee was in charge. Credit for this turnaround goes to Supervisor Bill Wilkinson and Len Bernard, who runs the town budget office. Cost-saving moves included offering seductive early retirement incentives to town employees and not hiring others for whom places had been reserved in the 2010 budget.

    A huge surplus like this is not likely to be repeated when this year’s numbers come in. Mr. Wilkinson’s 2011 to-the-bone budget was based on substantial tax cuts, and the greatest expense reductions came in the first year of his administration. However, cost cutting, such as by eliminating fall leaf pickup, and revenue growth, from such things as hiking the household waste-hauling fee to $100, will probably head off a big tax increase in 2012. Borrowing to pay off the town’s $27.2 million internal debt will be costly in the long run, but it will not add much to individual tax bills on a year-to-year basis.

    The spending reductions have in several instances aroused anger, but there appear to be no reports of serious ill effects from the town’s doing less with less. Further cuts, however, might begin to hamper the effectiveness of some government functions and the maintenance of key infrastructure. Whether Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Bernard’s tightfisted spending can be sustained over the long term will be the real test. For now, residents can enjoy lowered taxes and a much surer hand on town finances than in years past.

    In an eagerness to help shield larger home improvement and landscaping companies from competition from those with less overhead, several members of the East Hampton Town Board have set out to revise the town’s contractor licensing law. The law would be expanded to include landscapers, lawn mowers, and handymen, who are now exempt. The board has yet to schedule a hearing on it.

    Licenses would be required for anyone doing work on another’s house, lawn, or grounds, no matter how small the job, eliminating a loophole in the present law that allows those earning less than $500 per job to avoid licensing. While licensing laws may help protect homeowners from incompetent or unscrupulous workers, the proposed law requires liability insurance, with the Town of East Hampton named as co-insurer. No one would be exempt, including those contractors already registered with Suffolk County, such as plumbers and electricians. The license would cost $100.

    Before the town board heaps new regulations at a time of economic difficulty, serious consideration should be given to whether the law may be too restrictive and result in a whole class of workers and entrepreneurs being shut out from economic opportunity.

    The few dollars made by taking care of houses or doing odd jobs matter to a lot of year-round East Hampton residents, many of whom would be unable to afford the required insurance to keep doing what they have been all along. In some cases, the insurance requirement could be duplicative because homeowners usually have liability insurance that covers those doing odd jobs or occasional work for hire.

    Among those who would be hurt are young people and college students for whom summer jobs such as mowing lawns are a critical part of the budget. For a few, it could even mean the difference between continuing their studies or being forced to drop out. For semiretired people and recent immigrants looking to make a few extra dollars for living expenses, the licensing and insurance requirements could turn them into lawbreakers if they failed to comply or put them out of business. Then there are the commercial fishing families who rely on income from lawn mowing and other home services to compensate for reduced catches, lower daily limits, and ever-shorter harvesting seasons.

    Hurt, too, would be residents forced to pay for services in a marketplace with reduced competition in which the bigger operators are able to set the prices. Homeowners should be able to choose for themselves what size firms they hire for routine maintenance and small jobs; they should not have the Town of East Hampton doing it for them.

    Not to get all Horatio Alger about it, but starting out small, a person with a truck, a lawnmower, and a single client can begin a path to long-term financial security here, where other opportunities are limited. The town board should think again before putting up this kind of roadblock to success, and even to the American dream.

    The East Hampton School Board approved a pitch from its athletic director on Tuesday to allow advertising signs around the perimeter of the football field. Talk followed that the baseball field might also be encircled by ads come spring. Initially, the money, estimated to bring in about $6,000 a season, would be split between the youth football program and the district.

    Stephen Talmage was the most outspoken critic of the plan among board members and he cast the lone no vote, saying it represented the commercialization of public property. He was correct.

    Signs have been a hot-button issue in East Hampton for nearly 50 years, with contentiousness dating at least as far back as the early 1960s ban on billboards, which still stands. In recent years, there has been an increasing willingness among elected officials, and perhaps the public, to tolerate commercial come-ons where they once would have been unthinkable. An example is East Hampton Airport, where high-end products have been hawked on brightly lighted placards in a revenue-sharing deal.

    With an East Hampton school budget in excess of $64 million, it hardly seems worth it to place ads in front of kids this way. If the district is short $6,000 for its athletic programs, there have to be better ways to raise the money.

    Looking at old photographs of East Hampton Town, you are struck by a nearly complete absence of trees and other tall vegetation. In part, this is due to the long history of grazing animals on the South Fork, as well the use of wood for cooking and heating. The practice continued here until the early 20th century and even later in some households.

    One man, at least, would like to return the landscape, at least on some public land, to the windswept prospects of old. East Hampton Town Councilman Dominick Stanzione is the main backer of what he calls Project Open Vista, and he said he has had favorable responses from other board members.

    Mr. Stanzione would like the town to clear selected acreage of invasive plants and other brush tangles to bring back views of land that in some cases cost millions to preserve. He argues that there has been unconscious acceptance of the loss of some of the town’s valuable public vistas. In his opinion, neglect by successive town administrations may have cost this community emotional and spiritual visual sustenance. He said taxpayers have a vested interest in preserved lands, and, at the very least, should be able to see them. A pilot program on Bluff Road, Amagansett, was the subject of a recent meeting with the town architectural review board.

    For talking about such a program when East Hampton is struggling to pay for a sharp property tax cut through hiked fees, layoffs, and other measures, Mr. Stanzione has taken some criticism. However, his response is that the costs of restoring certain views could be funded creatively and spread over many years. One could envision tapping the community preservation fund for clearing some properties acquired through the fund and perhaps public-private partnerships on others. If the money cannot be found, so be it. But the idea, at least, should not be dismissed out of hand.

    Now that the August alt-rock festival at East Hampton Airport has received a green light, the promoters and town officials will have to work overtime to assure that disruptions are kept to a minimum. Plenty of people have complained that the 18-band, two-day event, with a hoped-for 9,500 fans, will create traffic and noise. And some pilots and service providers say they are worried about the effect on airport operations. On the other hand, prospective concertgoers have joined the promoters and town officials in saying all will be fine.

    The East Hampton Town Board’s decision to move the concert to the airport from the site in Amagansett for which it had initially been approved, was a step in the right direction. The second weekend of August is among the busiest, if not the single most crowded, part of the summer season. Were the festival, giant by East Hampton standards, in Amagansett, it would have caused maddening delays on Montauk Highway, resulted in unacceptable noise for neighbors, and generally upset the peace for thousands of residents and non-rocking visitors.

    It is generally agreed that the festival should not have been so hastily approved for the Amagansett site in the first place. The town board majority was apparently swayed by the promoters’ promise that it would create jobs and their offer of $100,000 in charitable donations. Given the nearly $2 million in anticipated ticket sales, that sum is modest. By comparison, the half-hour-long polar bear plunge at Main Beach on Jan. 1 raised about $20,000 and didn’t disturb a soul save a few nonplused seagulls.

    Opponents of the Amagansett site quickly rallied and hired a lawyer, who argued that under the town code a large for-profit gathering is not permitted on residential property. The new location is at the southern end of a disused runway, and, although adjacent to the main one, it is not, in the view of Federal Aviation Administration officials, a hazard to aircraft. Nevertheless, the event, with 22 hours of music, a roster of chefs, beer-makers and wineries, fashion boutiques, and rows of portable lavatories, is bound to affect aircraft coming and going, as well as the narrow, two-lane road leading to and from the site. (Just imagine what the sound effect on concertgoers will be when one of those Gulfstream IV jets powers up for takeoff.) We hope that all goes well, and that the disruptions are all but forgotten the morning after. But an important issue remains unresolved.

    The South Fork is a summertime magnet for pop-up events. Those that are fund-raisers for nonprofit organizations are permitted under the code. Were this festival to have taken place at the Amagansett site, however, it may have set a precedent for big gatherings on residential property. It would be unfortunate if, as the concert moves to the airport, the underlying issue regarding commercialization of noncommcerial lots was not more widely understood and ultimately resolved.

    By convincing margins, voters from Bridgehampton to Montauk approved school budgets Tuesday and rejected the more anti-tax school board candidates. However, the newly constituted boards should not ignore the fact that there were considerable numbers of no votes in many districts.

    Two factors would seem to be at play in the results. One is that parents of students now in school were strongly motivated to turn out to vote. This was notable especially on a day like Tuesday, during which torrential rains bombarded the streets almost until the balloting ended. Candidates closely associated with the schools themselves — parents, a former teacher, and a teacher’s husband — tended to prevail.

    Voters also appeared willing to reward their elected officials for at least trying to draft budgets that matched the tough economy. This is a difficult balance to strike, given the expenses that come as a result of unfunded state mandates, myriad contractual obligations, high school tuition, and longstanding pension agreements. Perhaps the majority of voters understood this and were resigned to seeing their taxes rise.

    Nevertheless, it is unsettling, especially for residents on fixed incomes or dependent on Social Security, to see school budgets go up — as most did this year — at more than twice the rate of inflation. Whether through district consolidation or as a result of a possible statewide tax cap, something will have to give. For the school