An analysis of the soil that blew off farm fields and blanketed commercial and residential areas of Amagansett this winter revealed no pesticides, according to a letter from the environmental remediation services provider contracted by East Hampton Town.

Meanwhile, the placement of straw atop the barren fields north of the hamlet’s municipal parking lot and installation of snow fencing to help keep it in place “has been successful at largely eliminating the swirling particulates that had caused concern,” according to a statement issued by the town on Friday.

The town board had arranged for the placement of straw and snow fencing after residents complained about “dust-bowl” conditions that they feared posed a health hazard. The straw, which was laid on the fields on Jan. 22, “has addressed the problem,” according to the statement.

“We share residents’ concerns about the recent dust storms in Amagansett,” Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said in the statement. “I am gratified that our agreed-upon solution appears to be working and am pleased that the town board was able to work together to achieve this result. We will continue to monitor the field conditions and take necessary actions to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.”

At the town board’s meeting on Tuesday, he reiterated that. “The dust has literally settled in Amagansett, for now. We hope that the straw and fencing will continue to stop that problem.”

The FPM Group collected soil samples from windblown dust piles in three locations, two on the north side of the parking lot and one from a public right of way traversing the field. Testing for a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation list of pesticides and metals, as recommended by the Suffolk County Health Department for agricultural properties, “indicate that no targeted pesticides were detected in any of the samples,” according to a letter from a senior hydrologist with the FPM Group to Michael Sendlenski, the town attorney.

Five metals — arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel — were detected in each of the samples, according to the letter, but at low concentrations, each below state standards. Results of the tests can be found on the town’s website. The presence of those metals, Mr. Van Scoyoc said on Tuesday, “are consistent with all farm fields in Suffolk County.”

On Jan. 14, residents crowded into the Amagansett Firehouse for a meeting of the hamlet’s citizens advisory committee, where they expressed concern for themselves and their children, not only about what the airborne particles might contain, but about the negative health effects of such small particulates filling the air.

Those concerns were taken to the town board’s meeting later that week. Mr. Van Scoyoc met with Barry Bistrian, whose family owns the field north of the parking lot; Peter Dankowski, the farmer who leases the land; Corey Humphrey, district manager of the County Soil and Water Conservation District, and Alex Balsam, a farmer and chairman of the town’s agricultural advisory committee, to develop a mitigation plan.

Straw was delivered to the fields, along with a bale-shredding machine, which Mr. Balsam lent for the effort, to disseminate it.

Dust conditions were particularly bad in Amagansett this winter because of the lack of a cover crop, for which an unusually wet harvest season was blamed. While Mr. Dankowski did plant a cover crop after harvesting potatoes, the crop did not take hold.

The dust prompted Organic Krush, a takeout shop on Main Street adjacent to the municipal parking lot, to close, its owners and management citing conditions that they said had sickened employees. The Amagansett School kept students indoors during recess on Jan. 11, and Seth Turner, the district superintendent, sent a letter to parents and guardians to address concerns about their children’s health. The school also held a special meeting to address parents’ concerns. Mr. Van Scoyoc said on Tuesday that air-quality testing conducted inside the school found no cause for concern.

The town board is considering legislation to codify the annual planting of a cover crop in response to this winter’s conditions. On Tuesday, Councilman Jeff Bragman said that he and NancyLynn Thiele, an assistant town attorney, have been “working on a law that would amend some portion of our code” to require that farmers contain soil onsite. “This is not a statute that restricts farming,” he said of such legislation. On the contrary, he said, it would protect farming.

This article has been updated since it was first published with the version that appeared in print on Feb. 7, 2019. 

East Hampton Town

New Features to Town Website

The East Hampton Town website, at ehamptonny.gov, has been updated to highlight announcements and current news of interest to the community in a regularly updated news section on the site’s homepage. 

The first stage in a systematic improvement of the website, which is expected to culminate in an extensive overhaul at the end of this year, is a “News and Announcements” section. Visitors can sign up for text or email alerts when new information is posted by selecting the “Stay Connected” button on the homepage, and then the “Notify Me” section. From there, by scrolling down, visitors can sign up for “News Flash” alerts. At that page, visitors can also elect to be notified about topics including upcoming events, meeting agendas, bids, job postings, and emergency notifications. 

Republican Committee Screening

The East Hampton Town Republican Committee has put out a call for those interested in screening for the positions of supervisor and two seats on the town board as well as town justice, tax assessor, and town trustee on Saturday and Sunday from 2 to 4 p.m. at the American Legion Hall in Amagansett.

The committee will screen candidates for the town board seats now held by Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc, Councilwoman Sylvia Overby, and Councilman David Lys, all Democrats. All three announced their intention to seek re-election at the East Hampton Town Democratic Committee’s Jan. 16 meeting. 

The Republicans’ screening process is open to Republicans, Democrats, Independence Party members, and those unaffiliated with a party. “If you believe in East Hampton and love our community,” Kyle Ballou, the committee’s secretary, wrote in an email, “then we want you.” Potential candidates have been asked to email Manny Vilar, the committee’s chairman, at [email protected] or Mr. Ballou at [email protected]. 

The Republican Committee will hold a nominating convention at its next monthly meeting, on Friday, Feb. 15, at the American Legion Hall. Election Day is Nov. 5. 

New York State

Approve Offshore Drilling Ban

The New York State Legislature has approved a ban on offshore drilling, a measure co-sponsored by Senator Kenneth P. LaValle that would prohibit offshore oil and gas production. 

“As the original lead sponsor of the legislation, I am pleased that the bill was approved by the Senate and Assembly,” Senator LaValle said in a statement on Tuesday. “We have painstakingly worked to preserve and protect our pristine waters, and we certainly do not want to imperil all of our efforts to maintain clean water by allowing drilling off our shoreline. I request that the governor sign the bill into law, so we can further protect our waters.” 

The bill would amend the state’s Environmental Conservation Law to prohibit the leasing of state-owned underwater coastal lands for oil and natural gas drilling. It would add a new component to prevent the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Office of General Services from authorizing leases that would result in the increase of oil or natural gas production in federal waters. 

In addition, the bill would amend the Transportation Corporations Law to restrict the powers of such corporations to develop pipelines associated with the delivery of natural gas or oil from the North Atlantic Planning Area, which spans the coastline from Maine to Delaware.

A coalition of environmental groups called Win Wind NY is “deeply disappointed” that Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. has withdrawn his support for the South Fork Wind Farm, the 15-turbine installation proposed to be constructed 35 miles off Montauk by Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind. 

“We are concerned that a leader who has championed renewable energy — and lives in a climate-fragile waterfront community — would pull away from Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s vision and plans for a wind energy industry to service our region’s work force, health, safety, and climate future,” said a statement issued jointly by the Sierra Club, the U.S. Green Building Council’s Long Island chapter, the Green Education and Legal Fund, All Our Energy, the Edgemere Community Garden Coalition, and the Long Island Progressive Coalition.

Mr. Thiele’s about-face last month, the group said, happened “over what appears to be a breakdown in communication” with Deepwater Wind, which since its 2018 acquisition by a Danish energy giant is known as Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind, “regarding ownership of the project and its increase in size.”

The company announced last year that advances in turbine technology afforded the South Fork Wind Farm a 44-percent greater output capacity, or 130 megawatts rather than the 90 megawatts initially envisioned, which Mr. Thiele said amounted to a “bait and switch” on Orsted’s part. He also complained about a lack of transparency over the rates Long Island Power Authority customers would pay for wind energy. 

“We agree with the Assembly member that our public utilities and any developer should be transparent and accountable to the public in our democracy,” the groups wrote. “But the contract between LIPA and Deepwater Wind (now Orsted) is not the only contract that we are not privy to. LIPA never discloses details of its power purchase agreements,” the group wrote, “though we take some comfort that they are all subject to review and approval by the state comptroller and attorney general.” 

“We urge Assemblyman Thiele and Orsted to get back together and work out their disagreements,” the groups wrote. “The South Fork project is too important to the East End, to the region, and to New York State to accept a breakdown in communications.”

State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. last week introduced legislation to allow the five East End towns to establish community housing opportunity funds using money from a .5-percent increase in real estate transfer taxes. 

Under the proposal, the money could be used to provide financial assistance to first-time homebuyers for up to 50 percent of the purchase price of a house, the “production” of housing to sell or rent, “rehabilitation of existing buildings for community housing,” housing counseling, and “education impact payments to local school districts.” 

In addition to a .5-percent addition to the 2-percent real estate transfer tax that finances the community preservation fund, the housing fund legislation would increase the exemption for transfer tax payments. For improved properties, the exemption would increase from $250,000 to $350,000 in East Hampton, Southampton, and Shelter Island Towns, meaning the first $350,000 of a home purchase would not be subject to the tax. The exemption would go from $150,000 to $250,000 in Southold and Riverhead Towns. In all cases, the exemptions would apply only to transfers of $2 million or less. 

Should the legislation pass, it would allow the individual towns to put the funds before their voters in mandatory referendums. Before the funds could be established, the towns would have to adopt community housing plans that would include a “regional housing strategy agreed upon by all five East End towns.” At least 20 percent of the money collected would have to be used to implement this strategy. Towns would also have to establish their own community housing advisory boards to advise the town boards. 

Based on 2017 community preservation fund revenues, Mr. Thiele’s office said, the fund could generate $22.7 million for housing across the East End, with $4.5 million of that available for regional housing initiatives. 

The income cap for a one or two-person household would be $140,040, and the purchase price for a single-family home would be capped at $938,649. 

“This legislation will provide towns with a meaningful tool that can make a difference by providing housing opportunities . . . at a much greater rate than they can with existing resources and programs,” Mr. Thiele said in a Jan. 30 release.

His proposal will next go before the Assembly’s local government committee, which Mr. Thiele chairs.

The riddle of how to address rising health care costs and gaps in coverage is an urgent topic that state and federal government officials struggle with as much as the families they serve. 

The New York Health Act, a state health care bill advancing the idea of a single-payer system — sometimes called Medicare for all — has gained a lot of traction and generated a lot of debate. Would such a universal health care bill deliver all the benefits that advocates say it could? Or are critics right to argue that the cons and unknowns are being downplayed too much?

Those are some of issues likely to be examined on Saturday at a 90-minute panel discussion called “What Is the New York Health Act?” at Chancellors Hall on the campus of Stony Brook Southampton. The doors open at 1 p.m., and the forum begins at 1:30. Audience members will be invited to speak as well. A reception will follow the discussion.

The scheduled panelists include Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr., Martha Livingston, a professor at the State University at Old Westbury and chairwoman of the school’s public health department, Michael Hynes, superintendent of Patchogue-Medford School District, and Jackie Romero, a nurses union representative. The event is being sponsored by Progressive East End Reformers, or PEER, and a host of local organizations, churches, and social agencies.

Cheryl Cashin, a health economist and PEER member, will moderate the discussion. Ms. Cashin is an expert at designing and implementing health system financing. She is also managing director at the Results for Development Institute, a nonprofit that works to advance universal health care initiatives around the world, with an emphasis on making such programs self-sustaining.

The question of who can, should, and would pay if the New York Health Act is passed is among the biggest issues driving the debate. 

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has indicated that he is inclined to see what the federal government does regarding the Affordable Care Act, which he supports keeping, before moving ahead in New York.

Mr. Thiele disagrees. He co-sponsored and voted for the New York Health Act last summer when it came before the State Assembly, and he said via email on Monday that he continues to back the measure.

“We cannot allow New Yorkers to face the life-or-death consequences of skyrocketing premiums and insufficient health coverage,” Mr. Thiele said in a statement explaining his vote. “If we truly believe that access to health care is a human right, then a single-payer system is the best way forward.”

“Even for New Yorkers with insurance coverage, an illness or hospitalization can lead to nearly insurmountable personal debt and, in some cases, bankruptcy. New York Health will ensure New Yorkers no longer have to fear being turned down because of a pre-existing condition or forgo critical medical care because of an inability to pay.”

The Health Act’s advocates want a bill that provides cradle-to-grave coverage regardless of age, wealth, income, or pre-existing conditions. A state agency called New York Health would administer the program, and there would be no co-pays, deductibles, or other charges to patients. The insurance would cover primary and preventive care, all medically necessary inpatient and outpatient care, prescriptions, vision, hearing, dental, and hospital stay costs. 

Participants would also be able to choose whichever doctor or provider they want, rather than the ones their insurance companies dictate now. Coverage would remain intact even if the insured person loses or switches jobs or needs care while out of state.

Some critics of the Health Act are skeptical that it would deliver the array of services and projected savings the bill’s proponents claim. Some argue that the program would be needlessly disruptive or a nightmare to administer. Opponents also argue that universal coverage would create added, perhaps crippling costs for business owners who currently don’t offer health care coverage for employees. They also question whether some businesses or certain professionals would thus avoid New York State.

One thing all sides do agree on is public education opportunities like Saturday’s forum are needed. And the health care system needs work.

In addition to PEER, the many co-sponsors of Saturday’s event include the East End Action Network, Calvary Baptist Church of East Hampton, Christ Episcopal Church of Sag Harbor, Organizacion Latino-Americana of Eastern Long Island, Southampton Democrats, and the Southampton Progressive Caucus.

While overall activity at East Hampton Airport decreased slightly last summer from the same period in 2017, operations — and particularly helicopter activity — were up sharply from 2016, when laws imposing curfews were in effect, according to a report delivered to the East Hampton Town Board on Tuesday. 

“The headline here is the more than 50-percent increase in helicopter traffic in two years,” Bill O’Connor of the law firm Cooley L.L.P. told the board. With Mary Ellen Eagan of HMMH, an environmental and transportation planning consultancy, he told the board that that helicopter activity at the airport increased by 52 percent, almost 2,000 operations, from 2016 to 2018. (An operation is defined as a takeoff or a landing.) Overall activity was up by 13 percent over the same period, despite a 1 percent drop from 2017 to 2018. 

Helicopters were also the category spurring the most complaints to the two systems used to record noise grievances, responsible for 54 percent of all aircraft complaints. Helicopters, Mr. O’Connor said, are “the main source of the noise complaints, and source of the noise problem, in East Hampton.”

Helicopter activity increased by 152 operations, or 3 percent, between June 28 and Sept. 30 last year over the same period in 2017, Ms. Eagan said. Airplane activity fell by 305 operations, or 3 percent, but seaplane activity was up by 105 operations, or 5 percent. 

Airplanes remained the largest category of aircraft operating at the airport last summer, the 9,299 operations representing 52 percent of all activity. Helicopters, 32 percent of operations, or 5,729 takeoffs or landings, were next. But, Mr. O’Connor noted, “two years ago, helicopters were about one quarter of users. Now that’s shifted to one third.” Seaplanes were the next largest category, 12 percent of operations. The report lists “undefined aircraft” as the remaining 3 percent. 

In “trying to solve this issue,” one that has “been around for decades,” Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said on Tuesday, the town board adopted laws establishing overnight curfews in April 2015. A coalition of aviation interests calling itself Friends of the East Hampton Airport challenged the laws, postponing their implementation until just prior to the July 4 weekend. The restrictions were enjoined by a federal appellate court in November 2016, however, which ruled that the town cannot independently enact airport use restrictions but must follow the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act and seek federal approval. 

The town has turned to a Part 161 study, an analysis it must complete in order to propose and enact noise or operational restrictions on aircraft. On Tuesday, the consultants updated the board as to that effort’s progress, and reviewed as-yet-unsuccessful efforts at federal legislation to add nighttime curfews and require the Federal Aviation Administration to implement an air traffic management plan for East Hampton. 

But while the Part 161 action could afford the town the ability to impose curfews at the airport, and customized federal legislation to address airport-related noise should still be pursued, the board was told, preparations should also be made for the airport’s closure, which the town would legally be permitted to do upon the expiration of federal grant assurances in 2021.

While the restrictions enacted in 2015 banned takeoffs and landings between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., with an extended ban from 8 p.m. to 9 a.m. for aircraft deemed noisy, “total operations continue to shift into the prior nighttime curfew hours,” according to the 2017-18 comparison. “ ‘Noisy’ aircraft operations continued to shift out of daytime hours into prior restricted nighttime curfew and extended curfew hours.” In short, “2018 operations continued to follow patterns from 2017 and deviate from the intent of the 2015 restrictions,” the report stated.

Noise complaints fell last summer relative to the summer of 2017, with overall complaints down by 10,586, or 23 percent. Complaints had roughly doubled, to more than 46,000, between 2016 and 2017, however, the appellate court ruling having lifted the curfews between those summer seasons. 

The Bell 407 helicopter prompted the most complaints last year, the board was told. The Sikorsky S-76, a helicopter that performed the most operations among all aircraft, drew the second highest number. A seaplane, the Cessna 208 Caravan, performed the second highest number 

of operations and brought the third 

most complaints. Not surprisingly, charter companies commonly use these aircraft to ferry people from Manhattan to East Hampton in the summer. 

Curfews, such as a blanket overnight curfew, Mr. O’Connor told the board, are an achievable outcome of the Part 161 action. But “frequency restrictions,” such as the board hoped to implement on aircraft deemed noisy in 2015, “may be more challenging.” The F.A.A. “likes to see a static restriction: Here’s the hours it’s open, here’s the hours it’s closed,” he said. “Any effort to try to impose caps could present a lot of litigation risk going forward.”

The F.A.A.’s metric of an airport’s annual day-night average decibel level doesn’t fit East Hampton’s condition as “a uniquely quiet and rural area,” Mr. O’Connor said, one that experiences a huge summer influx of tourists and second-home owners. The town is “starting from a real disadvantage in terms of math,” he said. “All the days you’re not hearing helicopters, that gets averaged, too.” 

Worse, “the F.A.A. has always been very skeptical of noise complaint data,” Mr. O’Connor said. Such data is just one component presented in a Part 161 study. “I don’t think it’s dispositive,” he said. But “in terms of defining a problem statement for our Part 161, we don’t need to rely on complaint data. It is, in a way, self-evident, there has been a lot of activity, not just here but throughout Long Island. . . . A correlation between routes and complaints makes complete sense.” For East Hampton “supplemental metrics we would present are quite critical,” he said, and F.A.A. officials he has spoken with have indicated an openness to considering such data on a discretional basis.

Concurrent to the Part 161 action, 

Mr. O’Connor suggested a “visioning process” to evaluate alternative uses for the 600-acre airport property, such as “to restore and preserve the quiet of our environment.” All stakeholders’ views would be considered, he said. “Have those discussions now to try to align with the town’s objectives and [with] residents’ best interests in mind.” 

Alternatives should be pursued in parallel with the Part 161 action and legislative efforts, he said, because “You can close this airport and use it for something else after grant assurances expire in 2021.”

The New York State Senate passed a series of bills to reform the electoral system last week, one of which will result in federal and state primary elections being held on the same day in June. 

A Jan. 14 statement issued by the State Senate, which flipped from a Republican to a Democratic majority in the November 2018 election, said that the legislation was passed “to improve New York State’s broken electoral system.” The state “consistently ranks as one of the worst voter turnout states in the nation,” the statement said.

Democrats also control the Assembly. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who is expected to sign the bills into law, is a Democrat.  

“I’m thrilled that they’re consolidating the primaries,” Cate Rogers, chairwoman of the East Hampton Town Democratic Committee, said on Monday. “Voters get fatigued” by multiple elections, she said, and “campaigns have to spend twice the money. It’s unnecessary.” 

Manny Vilar, who was elected as chairman of the East Hampton Town Republican Committee last month, agreed that aligning the state and federal primary elections is a positive development, as are the other reform measures. 

“It puts us more in sync with everything,” he said on Monday. Both Mr. Vilar and Ms. Rogers said that their respective committees are already moving to start the process of screening candidates for this year’s elections. 

The legislation scheduling federal and state primaries on the same date is also intended to ensure that the state’s election law complies with the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. 

In addition, the new legislation amends election law to hold limited liability companies, or L.L.C.s, to the same aggregate $5,000 contribution limit that applies to corporations. Current law allows an individual to make multiple contributions to the same candidate or committee through separate L.L.C.s. 

The amendment also requires disclosure of the identity and proportion of ownership of direct and indirect owners of an L.L.C.’s membership, and requires all of such an organization’s contributions to political committees or campaigns to be attributed to each member of the L.L.C. in proportion to his or her ownership interest. 

The State Constitution will be amended to allow for any voter to request to vote by mail without declaring a reason, subject to second passage by the next Legislature and approval by a statewide referendum. Also enacted, subject to the same conditions, is an amendment to the State Constitution removing the 10-day advance voter registration requirement. Reform measures establish an early voting system, as well, allowing eligible voters to vote in person during a designated period. 

Another amendment will require the board of elections to transfer a voter’s registration and enrollment to wherever he or she moves within the state. Finally, 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to preregister to vote, and local boards of education will be required to adopt policies to promote student voter registration and preregistration.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo surprised many last month when he declared that New York State should legalize the adult use of recreational marijuana “once and for all.” 

The governor’s call followed the July 2018 issuance of a report from the State Department of Health concluding that the advantages of a regulated and taxed cannabis industry outweighed the potential downsides. In advocating for legalization of recreational use, the governor, like other supporters, cited criminal convictions for possession and the lasting impacts of imprisonment and a criminal record, both disproportionately affecting minorities; the fact that New Jersey was moving toward legalization, and that recreational sales in another neighboring state, Massachusetts, have already begun.

The 2018 challenge by the actress Cynthia Nixon, whose advocacy for legalization was prominent in her unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor, may have also influenced Mr. Cuomo’s evolution on the subject. Just a year ago, the governor had referred to marijuana as a gateway drug. 

A bill is expected to seal convictions for possession of the drug, impose three separate taxes at the cultivation and wholesale stages, and establish an Office of Cannabis Management. Growers would be prohibited from opening retail shops, and counties and municipalities would be able to ban sales, as some have already moved to do. 

Ten states, including another bordering New York, Vermont, have legalized recreational use of marijuana, as has Washington, D.C., and other state governments are debating legalization. Marijuana use for medicinal purposes became legal in New York in 2016, though the law is considered restrictive relative to other states’ laws governing such use. 

With a newly Democratic majority in the State Senate, passage of a bill legalizing recreational use of marijuana by adults 21 and older is far more likely, Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. said this month, prior to the governor’s Jan. 15 State of the State address. But the governor’s promise that a regulated industry will eventually generate annual tax revenue of $300 million, he said, should not unduly influence legislators. 

“Clearly, the governor has substantially changed his position,” Mr. Thiele said. “It wasn’t but a few years ago he was extremely resistant to even providing for a program for medical marijuana. In fact, the final legislation reflected that. Some people would say it was so stringent, with the language he put in, it was almost unworkable.”

The revenue benefit derived from regulated and taxed marijuana “is one of my least concerns,” Mr. Thiele said. “I think people in the Legislature have spent that 20 times over already.” In the context of a $176 billion budget, “I’m not saying it’s inconsequential, but it is not going to change the finances of the state in a material way. Every controversial measure that’s ever come up in the Legislature, people try to sell it on revenue — the lottery, casino gaming a few years ago. I’m going to be focused more on the impact on communities and individuals.”

“This is certainly going to be a situation where the details matter,” he said. “From my perspective, of all the things that I think need to be priorities during the 2019 session, this one is down the list pretty far. I think that electoral reform, fixing the voting system, reproductive rights, health care, and education are all more important than this particular issue.” (The State Senate passed legislation addressing election reform last week.) 

State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle is unequivocally opposed to legalization. In a statement issued yesterday, Mr. LaValle, a founding member of the Senate’s task force to address heroin and opioid addiction, said that “We have worked very hard to halt the spread of drug use and provide resources for treatment,” including mandating additional insurance coverage, enabling the administration of Narcan, increasing the number of treatment beds, and improving enforcement tools. “While these efforts have made improvements, I still meet too many people who have lost loved ones to addictions. Many families in my district have been affected by this crisis, and without more conclusive evidence concerning marijuana as a gateway drug, in good conscience, I cannot support its legalization.”

“Do I see any pluses? No,” said Karen Martin, the acting executive director of Alternatives Counseling Services, with offices in Southampton and Riverhead. “Except for now people won’t get arrested and clog the system with low-level things.” Having said that, “This isn’t your marijuana of yesteryear,” Dr. Martin said. “It’s stronger. We’ve gotten so much smarter that we’ve learned how to hybrid these things, so it is so much more potent that it’s scary. . . . Way back when, it may have been a gateway drug. Today, it is absolutely a drug that is addictive. Mind-altering, no question about that. It’s going to lead to more addiction, most likely.”

While legalization of marijuana is slowly but surely taking hold across the country, and a Quinnipiac University Poll last year concluded that New York voters supported the legal possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use 63 to 32 percent, there has been pushback against legalization for recreational use from other quarters. In the Jan. 14 issue of The New Yorker magazine, Malcolm Gladwell wrote that “When it comes to cannabis, the best-case scenario is that we will muddle through, learning more about its true effects as we go along and adapting as needed,” likening legalization’s aftermath to the push for safer automobiles. He also referred to “Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence,” in which Alex Berenson asserts conclusions self-evident in the title, at least among long-term, heavy users of marijuana. 

But Mr. Gladwell is “over-hyping the issue a bit,” said Harrison Wise, president of Wise Public Relations in Manhattan, which specializes in the cannabis industry. Mr. Wise acknowledged some legitimate concerns about detrimental effects of marijuana use, but added that some of the warnings voiced in anti-legalization statements “are completely off-base,” akin to dramatic but outlandish portrayals in the 1936 film “Reefer Madness,” which became a cult classic in the ensuing decades. 

Mr. Wise sees many upsides to legalization for recreational use, as against few, if any, downsides. “The pros are clear: revenue, revitalization of certain industries, especially in the northern part of the state — farming, hemp farming, indoor farming, extraction, manufacturing. Putting that money to good use is certainly advantageous. But it’s important that we get it right. New York is a very complex state.” 

He agreed with the governor and Mr. Thiele that a deliberate approach to legalization is warranted. “I think it’s smart for Governor Cuomo to take a more calculated approach,” he said. “I think there’s still a lot of learning that should come from the states that have already legalized recreational marijuana. A lot of that is underway. Learning from their mistakes will help us make the right choices in terms of how they roll it out. We are a very large state, there’s a lot at stake here, both from a New York City perspective as well as the larger State of New York.”

Questions to address include how many dispensaries should be permitted and where retail sales would be conducted, he said. “What is the saturation point? How much can you sell to an individual? Do you allow people to grow their own? New York City is very vertical,” and smoking on certain premises, and secondhand smoke, must be considered. “A lot of the primary cons are probably going to be centered on the five boroughs, because of the saturation of our city,” he said. 

Legalization for recreational use would also spur innovation, Mr. Wise predicted. “You’re creating new jobs, opportunities for entrepreneurs to bring types of delivery and ancillary services to consumers, or patients and consumers — let’s not overlook the medicinal aspect of legalization.” 

Mr. Gladwell argued that significant uncertainty of marijuana’s effects persists because its prohibition throughout most of the 20th century meant little research has been done. A 2017 report by a panel convened by the National Academy of Medicine “simply stated, over and over again, that a drug North Americans have become enthusiastic about remains a mystery,” he wrote. 

Dr. Martin at Alternatives said that she is not opposed to research. “Before we say it’s okay and helpful, and before we say it’s a horrible thing, don’t you think research should be ferreted? Do I see more downsides? Absolutely, only because it’s so much stronger. Alcohol isn’t being kept out of kids’ hands; marijuana won’t be kept out of adolescents’ hands now.” 

Mr. Thiele said that personal experience would likely be one of several factors in his own vote on legalization. “I grew up in the late ’60s and early ’70s,” he said. “I can tell you I tried it, and I did inhale. . . . It’s, in some ways, almost been a rite of passage. I’m not saying everybody has tried it, but certainly a lot have.” He does not use marijuana today, he said, nor is past use particularly controversial for those seeking elective office, as it was a few decades ago. 

Regardless of one’s personal experience, a newly Democratic majority in the Senate makes passage of a bill legalizing recreational use of marijuana a strong possibility in the first 100 days of Governor Cuomo’s third term, as he has called for. Seventeen newly elected legislators now serve in the Senate, Mr. Thiele noted. Many of them defeated, in last year’s primary election, a member of the Independent Democratic Conference, which was dissolved last year, or an incumbent Republican in the general election. “Not only is it a Democratic majority, but a decidedly more progressive majority,” he said.

The East Hampton Town Board last Thursday authorized the $900,000 purchase of an approximately 3.92-acre parcel on Route 114 just outside Sag Harbor on which up to 27 units of affordable housing will be constructed.

The property is adjacent to cottages owned by the Sag Harbor Community Housing Trust, and there is potential for the sites to be developed in conjunction with one another. Despite their proximity to Sag Harbor, both parcels are in the Wainscott School District, whose board registered its opposition to the plan at a public hearing before the vote.

David Eagan, president of the Wainscott School Board, which opposed a previous effort to create affordable housing in the hamlet, said that the district “takes no position on the concept of affordable housing or this board’s policy of seeking to build additional town-sponsored or initiated housing projects.” It does, however, take a strong position on “our community’s desire to preserve and continue the historical mission of our unique school district.” That mission, he said, is character-

ized by the kindergarten-through-third-grade schoolhouse’s open-classroom format, which “promotes a highly collaborative and caring learning environment,” that has been the district’s model since 1730.

Despite having just 279 year-

round residents, its 129 students from ­prekindergarten through 12th grade who live in the hamlet make up 46.23 percent of the population, Mr. Eagan said. Moreover, “Wainscott has multi-

ple multifamily units that are used for affordable housing.” 

But those statistics were cherry-picked, complained David Buda, who said that the hamlet could easily absorb an influx of school-age children resulting from an affordable housing development. The school tax rate in Wainscott, he said, is a tiny fraction of that in Springs, where he lives. “I think the Wainscott district can cope with this,” he said. “The town needs affordable housing.” 

More speakers sided with Mr. Buda than with Mr. Eagan. On behalf of the Sag Harbor Community Housing Trust, Ed Reale, who is on the trust’s board, voiced support for the acquisition, as well as a joint venture or some other cooperative arrangement by which the adjacent properties’ housing potential could be enhanced. 

Mr. Reale said that his son “had a treasured experience at the Wainscott School. He, his brother, and almost all of their childhood friends can no longer afford to live here. . . . That, to me, is very telling.” 

Arthur Schiff, representing a group called Progressive East End Reformers (PEER), spoke of a “critical need for affordable work-force, next-generation, and senior rental apartments.” 

Michael Hanson of Wainscott summarized supporters’ argument in favor of the acquisition for affordable housing. “The woman at the King Kullen that I chat with, she lives in Manorville. My mechanic lives in Riverhead. The employee at our post office in Wainscott, he lived in Moriches, and the commute in the summer was nearly three hours. . . .  That’s what we’re dealing with in Wainscott.”

After the hearing was closed and the board voted to purchase the property, Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc said that, “We have to be able to figure out how to accommodate this need and do so as quickly as possible, without abandoning our values.” He acknowledged the concerns of the plan’s opponents, but said that, “if we’re not going to take care of our community” and allow new generations to continue living in East Hampton, “we’ve really lost some­thing important, a core of who we are as a community.”

The town will purchase the property, at 780 Route 114, from the Triune Baptist Church, which acquired the land in 1993 but fell short in its effort to raise money to construct a church at the site.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. announced that he had reversed his position and now opposed the South Fork Wind Farm, a 15-turbine installation proposed to be constructed approximately 35 miles off Montauk.

Mr. Thiele's statement cited what he called "the classic 'bait and switch' " on the part of its developer, Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind, formerly Deepwater Wind. He had given the project his qualified support last year.

A spokesman for Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind said the company was confused by Mr. Thiele's about-face.

In his May 2018 statement, issued as the East Hampton Town Board and the town trustees were debating an easement or lease to the offshore wind developer so that it could bring the wind farm's transmission cable ashore in the town and bury it on a path to a Long Island Power Authority substation, Mr. Thiele expressed his support for renewable energy, including wind power.

"Through legislation, capital investment, and public statements, I have demonstrated support for a clean energy future for eastern Long Island and New York State that is based upon renewable energy," he wrote. "I have also supported producing and conserving energy locally to avoid the need for more above-ground transmission lines to import power to our communities."

His support for offshore wind power in May 2018 should not have been construed as a rubber stamp for every offshore wind proposal, he wrote on Thursday. He referred to the concerns of the commercial fishing industry, which is almost uniformly opposed to the South Fork Wind Farm.

"Since my statement in May, two important changes have occurred," he wrote. One is Deepwater Wind's acquisition by Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind, Denmark's largest energy company and the world's largest offshore wind developer. "Second, shortly after acquisition by Orsted, I have read that the project would utilize larger turbines and that the size of the project would increase from 90 megawatts to 130 megawatts, or a 44-percent increase."

The change in output capacity, Clint Plummer, Orsted's head of market strategies and new projects, had said in November, was a result of advances in turbine technology, with larger and more efficient models developed since the wind farm was first designed. The initial proposal for the installation, made in 2015, was based on 6-megawatt turbines, whereas 8, 10, and 12-megawatt turbines have since become available.

But this, Mr. Thiele said, "is the classic 'bait and switch.' What we were originally told about the project and its goals are no longer true. A project originally proposed by an American company to address the growing energy needs of eastern Long Island, now is to be part of the portfolio of an international energy giant, whose first decision was a 44-percent increase in the size of the project. We are left to imagine what other changes might be made or what other projects might show up on our doorstep in the future. . . . Because of the 'bait and switch' tactics of Deepwater/Orsted, I cannot trust them with my community's future."

He also cited concern about LIPA's "ill-considered policy of denying public access to the Deepwater agreement under the guise of confidentiality," for which he said there is no legitimate basis. He said that he would introduce legislation during the upcoming session "making it clear that these kinds of agreements are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. LIPA can either make the agreement public now or be compelled to make it public when my bill is enacted into law."

A spokesman for Orsted U.S. Offshore Wind said in an email on Thursday, "We are as committed as ever to building an offshore wind farm that the South Fork can be proud of. The South Fork Wind Farm is the most affordable solution for the South Fork's energy needs, and that's a major reason why the community has overwhelmingly supported the project for years. We stand ready to make historic investments in East Hampton, including support of the commercial fishing community."

"Thanks to technology advancements," Orsted's statement continues, "we can now provide even more clean energy to the South Fork, at an even lower price. We've talked publicly about what our new ownership, and our expanded project, mean for Long Island. We've requested multiple times over the course of the last four months to meet with Assemblyman Thiele to brief him on the facts -- that offer still stands. Frankly, we're confused why Assemblyman Thiele was such a strong and vocal supporter of the 90-megawatt project, but now opposes the project when it's capable of producing even more clean energy for his constituents at a lower price."