Down in Miami a couple of years ago, they banned the use of residential property for commercial purposes. This came as a surprise to a wealthy couple who had rented a house for a 40th-birthday party in February, and then faced the threat of a police blockade. The rental cost them $40,000, and, in the view of the City of Miami, the payment was an illegal transaction. 

The Miami law was put in place to stop short-term rentals for parties and promotional events that annoyed the neighbors, with cars parked every which way, traffic tie-ups, loud music, and the like. Though a judge allowed the party to go on, it touched off a discussion about whether the no-party laws were tough enough. The city has appealed the judge’s decision and is considering further measures to put a stop to the trade in mansions for hire. 

This has echoes on the South Fork, but especially in East Hampton Town, where a two-day rock festival this summer has been planned for residential property in Amagansett. Those who oppose using the site for the festival allege that it would be in violation of not-quite-identical but nevertheless similar regulations. 

Unlike in Miami, where officials have sided with residents in trying to enforce peace and quiet, East Hampton Town was sued late last month in an effort to overturn its approval of the August festival. Among other things, the suit claims that the town’s commercial-gathering permit, which was issued for the festival, is not applicable to events on private property. East Hampton might do well to heed the Miami model.

    In all, nearly a mile of East Hampton’s oceanfront shoreline could become off limits to the public if parallel lawsuits brought by a group of property owners prevail. There is a great risk that stretches of beach in Amagansett and on Napeague would be, in effect, privatized after centuries of being open to all who wished to pass. The property owners are claiming that a 19th-century sale by the East Hampton Town Trustees reserved for them alone the use of the area above the high-tide line. If they win in court, everything from beach driving to birdwatching could be blocked when the tide is up.

So far, the trustees and town board have mounted a lackluster defense of a tradition considered almost sacrosanct. The trustees chose Sag Harbor’s village attorney to handle the case, and the town, also named in the suit, has had an inactive town attorney, who was removed from daily responsibilities in July after a dispute, on the case. Neither has the kind of litigation experience necessary for taking on a matter this important. 

It is to some measure the fault of the trustees and town board that the claim of private ownership reached the point of litigation in the first place. The rules governing beach driving are rarely enforced, especially in the early morning and evening hours, and the so-called “truck beach” on Napeague has become too crowded in summer. During the fall bass runs, pedestrians find the beach almost impassable because of all the tire ruts. This is not to say that the plaintiffs would not have filed the lawsuits had, for example, four-wheeler permit checks been more rigorous. However, a more active role by police and marine patrol officers might have helped avert the current high-stakes legal confrontation.

Faced with the prospect of being reviled as the group that lost the beaches, and perhaps resigning themselves to defeat, officials are said to be privately considering the possibility of condemnation if the town does not prevail in court. But well before the matter advances that far, the town board and trustees should re-evaluate their defense team and its strategy, and take immediate steps to increase their firepower.

The public trust doctrine, which involves access to waterways and other assets, and the East Hampton Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, which carries the force of state law, could perhaps be brought to bear on these suits. Furthermore, a reasonable question might be whether the 1882 land sale cited by the property owners in itself violated the law by giving away something the trustees did not have the right to abandon, namely, free passage along the shore.  

From colonial times onward, the public has had a vested right to use the beach. Those who value the continued freedom of the beaches should demand that town officials spare no effort or expense in taking on this fight. 

   Sag Harbor Village will soon have a new and expensive maintenance responsibility when it takes over ownership of Long Wharf from the county. Given the financial crisis climate, Suffolk officials have been looking for ways to shed costs. So they offered the 1,000-foot-long pier to the village for $1, threatening to sell it to the highest bidder if the village didn’t pony up. It wasn’t surprising that the village trustees voted, albeit with some grumbling, last week to go ahead with the deal. Sag Harbor Mayor Brian Gilbride has proposed putting money into a reserved fund to meet anticipated costs.

    Fees to dock at the wharf bring about $90,000 to the village each year. It has been responsible for its routine upkeep, while the county, as owner, has shouldered major repairs, about $1 million in the last decade. That’s not a very high price tag. But roughly $340,000 of new work will be needed soon, according to the county.

    It is disappointing that the county, which is glad to take a considerable share of sales tax receipts away from the South Fork, would be so parsimonious when it comes to giving some money back. Legislator Jay Schneiderman, whose office is on Washington Street in Sag Harbor, not far from the wharf, said his efforts to win money for its repair were met with resistance from UpIsland lawmakers. Meanwhile, he said, the East End is shortchanged by having to pay about $3 million toward county police spending.

    If Suffolk continues to rid itself of holdings out east, as well as to hold back money that rightfully should come this way, we wonder if renewed calls for a breakaway Peconic County will be far behind.

   Truth be told, we had our doubts about the official fisheries lobbyist for East Hampton Town when Arnold Leo was first appointed some years ago. However, in the time that he held the job and based on reports from people in the industry, our opinion changed.    

    This year, despite a sharp reduction in the town budget line for his position, Mr. Leo had intended to stay on, working with Albany and Washington. That is, until he was precipitously fired by the town board along party lines earlier this month. No one has been named to replace him, leaving the town without representation at upcoming important regional meetings.   

    If there were valid criticisms of Mr. Leo’s performance, as Supervisor Bill Wilkinson has hinted, we have not heard them, nor has Mr. Leo, who was surprised by the Republicans’ sudden disapproval.  With Mr. Leo’s $15,000 stipend for 2011 the only thing at stake and already in the budget, it would make sense for the board to return him to the post — at least until a replacement is settled upon. There are issues and regulatory battles just ahead for the town’s commercial and recreational fishing interests, and it is essential that an experienced hand is at the helm.     

   That town, state, and federal officials are vowing to do something about the dangerous shoaling of the Montauk Inlet gives many people hope. However, the owners, captains, and crews of the large vessels that use the harbor should not let up their pressure until the equipment arrives and the job starts.

    Like many inlets on the South Fork, Lake Montauk’s is a perennial trouble spot. Sand has been building up at about the midpoint inside the two parallel stone jetties for some time now, leaving only a narrow navigable channel for the bigger boats. Digging out the obstruction could cost taxpayers around $1 million, officials say. The work has been scheduled for 2013, but the fishing fleet’s representatives have convinced the powers that be that it needs to take place this year.

    Because of the United States Coast Guard station in Lake Montauk, it is a federal waterway, which makes the inlet the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. It will have to move money around to dredge it in 2011. Given the snail’s pace with which such agencies tend to work, it will be a small miracle if anything happens within the narrow time limits set by state environmental officials. One idea linked to the inlet’s dredging is to pump sand over the west jetty in the hope that it would help protect several threatened houses and motels. State officials have already okayed placing sand to a point 1,000 feet west of the inlet. Unfortunately, the effort would not buy much peace of mind for the owners of property along that stretch of moving shoreline. Several, who own vacation houses in the area, have sued, claiming that the jetties are responsible for their houses’ precarious positions. In the past, legal action has held up dredging projects, notably at Accabonac Harbor. For the safety of the fishing fleet, we hope this will not be the case in Montauk.

    News of the huge state fine levied on a Montauk marina owner and his contractor for illegal dredging is a serious reminder about wetlands protection. In a recent settlement, Rick Gibbs of Rick’s Crabby Cowboy on the eastern shore of Lake Montauk and Keith and Susan Grimes, who run land-moving businesses, will pay a $75,000 fine, and will have to pay $55,000 more if an agreed-to cleanup is not completed. In all, three businesses received 20 notices of violation from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, including dredging, building a road in a tidal wetland, storing materials without a permit, and conducting the work after a June 1 seasonal cutoff designed to protect the environment.

    All of this raises a question: Where was East Hampton Town?

    The laws on the town’s books in this regard are, if anything, tougher than the state’s, but there was not a single local citation. The East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Department are supposed to issue dredging permits, and the Ordinance Enforcement Department is responsible for being on the lookout for violations. None were involved in this case, and no town charges resulted. It was only through the insistence of the Group for the East End that these violations of law were brought to the D.E.C.’s attention. In addition, statements at the time from Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson indicated one of three things: Either he had no knowledge of environmental law, spoke too hastily when he said all necessary permits were in place, or his sympathies lay with Mr. Gibbs and the Grimeses.

    At a time when the state is struggling with the deep budget cuts that have hurt the conservation department, among others, it is important that local officials remain on the job. Unfortunately, in this case, and perhaps others that have not come to light — it appears that they have overlooked this responsibility.

Pergolas and other landscape appurtenances were the objects of contention at a Sagaponack Village Board meeting last week, but the real issue was the size of houses. The village trustees’ idea that these garden follies be counted against the total allowable floor area amounted to fighting words. If a trellis, for example, was included in the square-footage calculations, the main structure would have to be that much smaller.

The board’s pergola proposal was anathema to those who have made an industry out of selling spec houses in the charming village. There seem to be Wall Streeters around still willing to invest in big houses, and the bigger they are the more money there is to be made. One developer went so far as to say the concept was “totalitarian.” Well, maybe.

Having heard from others in the trades who opposed including lawn features in square-footage limits, the village board eased up a bit. To be considered at a Dec. 3 hearing will be a proposal spotting property owners one pergola of up to 300 square feet per lot without their counting against house dimensions. This seems more than fair; one board member said she had a pergola half that size, which was big enough for a dining table for 12.

Also to be reviewed at the hearing will be lifting a restriction on other accessory structures, such as potting sheds and pool houses, which limits their size to no more than 30 percent of the main house. This sounds like a risky give-away, even on large parcels. A better path would be to leave the rule on the books and let exemptions be handled on a case-by-case basis by the village zoning board.

Sagaponack was not put on this earth to serve the interests of those who want to own hyper-crenellated McMansions or those who cover its fertile soil to supply them at maximum profit. The village trustees are right to consider reasonable limits on the excesses of the few who would prefer no fetters at all.

“(De)Constructing Paradise,” a talk by Enzo Enea on April 4 at 6:30 p.m. at the Cosmopolitan Club in Manhattan, will be this year’s Madoo in Manhattan Robert Dash Garden Design Lecture. A reception will follow the talk.

An acclaimed Swiss landscape architect as well as one of the world’s most prominent tree collectors, Mr. Enea will introduce his company’s philosophy and present different projects that engage with the notion of paradise and how it has been expressed through his work of the last 25 years. 

Mr. Enea is the founder and principal of Enea Landscape Architecture, which has created more than 500 projects worldwide. One of these, the Tree Museum, opened to the public in 2010. Situated near Upper Lake Zurich in Switzerland, the museum exhibits individual trees from his collection as well as contemporary sculpture in a combination of landscape, botany, art, architecture, and design.

After training as an industrial designer, Mr. Enea studied landscape architecture in London and then traveled to Brazil and Hawaii, where he designed his first major landscape project. He has received numerous gold and silver awards at the Giardina show in Basel and Zurich and in 1998 was awarded a certificate of merit at the Chelsea Flower Show in London. A hallmark of his projects is the fusion of outdoor and indoor spaces. 

Tickets, which are available at madoo.org, are $150, $125 for members. Advance reservations are required, as are jackets and ties for men.

Now in its third year, Caplan Rose, an East End travel company that organizes private tours of gardens and cultural destinations in rural England, has announced its summer 2019 excursions, which include Cotswolds Gardens: Contemporary English Designers and Visionaries of the Past.

The trip, which will take place May 7 through May 12, will range from the 17th-century Rousham Garden by William Kent to private gardens by the influential contemporary designers Arne Maynard, Dan Pearson, and Tom Stuart-Smith. The region is notable for its many medieval villages, rolling countryside, and iconic country houses. Guests will stay at a hotel that “combines traditional comfort with a modern urban twist and locavore cuisine,” according to the company’s website.

“The Cotswolds is an extraordinarily beautiful part of England,” said Emily Goldstein, co-owner with Katharine Battle of Caplan Rose. “For those who have been before, what is distinctive is that we bring people to private gardens they wouldn’t otherwise have access to. It’s a very personal experience. We take eight to 12 people, so a lot of detail goes into the selection of gardens every year. And the itineraries are always evolving, which makes it fun for us.”

Caplan Rose has organized two other excursions for 2019, one to Devon and Cornwall and one to Scotland. Both are fully booked. In addition, Ms. Goldstein and Ms. Battle are able to design itineraries throughout the United Kingdom tailored to the specific interests, dates, and budgets of private groups.

Ms. Goldstein has worked as a gallery director and private art adviser and in 2004 founded the Drawing Room in East Hampton with Victoria Munroe. Born in Scotland and educated in England, Ms. Battle lived and worked in England, Italy, and Mexico before moving to the United States in 1997. Both women live in Sag Harbor.

More information is available online at caplanrose.com.

Christmas is coming and garden shops and nurseries already have begun selling fir trees. You’ve seen them everywhere. For the most part, when the holidays are over they are allowed to dry out on firewood piles, used by municipalities to shore up dunes, or taken to the dump. 

Another trend, one more in keeping with sound environmental practice, is taking over on the East End, however. Instead of a tree felled by chain saw, homeowners are buying live trees with root balls intact to be used temporarily indoors and eventually set into permanent spots on their properties.  

Opting for a live Christmas tree requires some planning, however, and the experts were ready to give some advice.

 “For most people, the first concern is going to be the size and weight,” said Nikki Seelbach, a designer at Charlie and Sons Landscapes in Amagansett. “A traditional Christmas tree could have a root ball on it that weighs over 90 pounds.”

Marders in Bridgehampton sells Norway spruces, which Kevin Coffey, one of its tree experts, called one of the best performers on the East End. The trees, he said, average 6 feet tall, weigh about 200 pounds, and cost $249. The nursery also carries a 4-foot version, already in a container, for $149.

One of the drawbacks to having a live Christmas tree is the limited time it can be displayed indoors. “Trees are going into dormancy in the fall,” said Ms. Seelbach, so when placed in a heated home, “you’re basically bringing it back into summer time.” To protect the health of a tree, she said, “it should only remain in the house for 10 days.”

Before it makes it indoors, however, the tree should be allowed to slowly adjust to the temperature. “You should acclimate it in a garage or an intermediate space for two or three days before you bring it into your house,” Ms. Seelbach said. She added that once inside, a tree should be treated like an extra-large houseplant; the soil should remain wet, although the root ball should not sit in excess water.

Ms. Seelbach recommended thinking ahead if you plan to plant a live tree after the holidays. A hole for it should be prepared before the winter’s cold sets in, so that the ground will be soft enough for digging and someone able to carry heavy weights should be ready and willing.

“You want to dig a hole that is the same depth or even a few inches shallower than the root ball, and twice as wide,” she said. “Planting a tree too low is the quickest way to kill it.”

After the tree has spent the holiday indoors, it should return to the garage or shed for a few days to acclimate to the new temperature. Then it will be ready to be planted outdoors where, in a visible and attractive place, it can keep the Christmas spirit alive throughout the years to come.