What’s In A Name? -- Updated

Today, instead of offering my views on those drivers who don’t seem to understand the purpose of Traffic Lights and Stop/Yield Signs, I would like to address the claims of the “Sault Memorial Gardens Rededication Committee.”

I’ll pick up the traffic theme next week.

---

Mark Brown is playing with semantics in claiming that he and his committee represent a "majority of taxpayers." In a post in the News Response Forum, he defends his definition of “majority.”

He claims that his is “a group that represents the explicit request of 9,871 people…” and suggests that anyone who signed the petition represents a "majority of taxpayers," and that those who did not sign and who disagree with his view do not represent the majority.

He also states that “MOST people who signed the Petition were NOT ASKED to sign it, they just found it sitting in a store somewhere and put down their name, ADDRESS and signature because they feel that strongly about it.”

First of all, simply by sponsoring a petition and making it available his committee essentially is asking people to sign it; the fact that 9871 people chose to sign it still does not make that a "majority of taxpayers."

Finally, he makes a claim that polling firms can conduct a survey of 1000 people and “make claims about ALL Canadians,” however this claim is misguided and specious: polling firms employ statistical analysis to determine whether or not the sample (population and size) is statistically significant, and accurate to a defined and stated margin of error.

Pollsters do not claim to represent the views of a majority of Canadians, they merely extrapolate from a representative sampling of opinions to provide an estimate. As any politician knows, and as my friend Hammertime constantly reminds us, the only poll that counts is the one held on election day.

Does Mark Brown and his committee represent a moderately large group of people who hold a strong opinion regarding the re-naming of the Steelback Centre? Yes.

Should City Council make a decision based on the stated opinion of a group of people that comprise only thirteen percent of the population? No, although I am certain they are aware of this group’s views and have taken them into consideration.

Personally, I was never all that happy with finding a sponsor from outside of the city, but I acknowledge that there is also some merit to bringing money into the community. Also, a sponsor with a wider brand recognition can provide a level of promotion that would be either unavailable or too cost-prohibitive for local businesses.

Steelback initially offered this benefit. For instance, the company took over sponsorship of the Grand Prix of Toronto after Molson’s dropped the event. This is a widely-broadcast event attended by 160,000 spectators, and the same logo that is on our arena was seen by millions of people.

As an aside, Andretti Green Racing, through its subsidiary Andretti Green Promotions, as signed a letter of intent to purchase the assets of the Grand Prix Association of Toronto Corp. It is unclear whether or not there will be a race in 2008, but fans are hopeful it will return.

But I digress. As I mentioned, a nationally-known sponsor brings brand recognition and advertising resources to the table, and the City can benefit from this.

One problem I do have with these arrangements is that they do expire, and there is no guarantee that the deal will be renewed. Also, as with Steelback, some companies do go under; other companies are acquired in corporate mergers, and brand names disappear.

For example, while still called the Scotties Tournament of Hearts, the formerly eponymous brand of paper towels is now known as Sponge Towels and is owned by Kruger Products.

I would prefer the facility be given a name that will last as long as the building itself, but the present-day reality is that the sponsorship model is very attractive, financially. It takes a chunk out of the bill the taxpayers have to foot, and provides an additional revenue stream.

The troubles we have encountered with Frank D’Angelo and Steelback are relatively minor. Because corporate sponsorship is popular, and the facility is recognized as one of the better multi-purpose venues in the province, the City should have very little problem finding a new sponsor.

Meanwhile, veterans have been honoured by the preservation of the Memorial Tower and the installation of the Wall of Honour, as well as a better venue for the annual Remembrance Day observation.

Changing the name a mere two years after the facility opened will be confusing enough; changing the name unofficially in the interim would only prove more confusing.

Finally, my friend Sandy B made the comment last week that in her life (I’m not allowed to say how long that has been) she had never referred to the former facility by its full name. Like so many others, myself included, she only ever called it “The Gardens.”

How many people still refer to our north-end wilderness park as “Hiawatha Park,” even though the name was changed to “Kinsmen Park” in the mid-eighties?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

But… that’s just my opinion.

---

I received an e-mail from Mark Brown, on behalf of his "Sault Memorial Gardens Rededication Committee." I have, with Mark's permission, re-printed an excerpt from his e-mail, which represents the salient point of his argument, here:


"How can you agree that names and mementos mean almost nothing, that it is we who explain to the unaware based on inquiries and exposure to names and mementos relating to sacrifices made that is the only true way the sacrifices are remembered and honoured, and then turn around and spew the virtues of already preserved and prominently displayed mementos without giving the obliterated name the same the same reverence?

You, sir, are a verifiable hypocrite."

My reply:


Mark,

Are you SERIOUS? How can I agree with the point you made yourself?

Please re-read my response. I did NOT say that "the names and mementos mean almost nothing." Rather, I stated, quite clearly, I thought, that the mementos mean EVERYTHING, and it is up to all of US to pass along the memories and the reason for those mementos being installed at whatever location.

The building does not hold the memories: WE DO.

The building did not have a responsibility to pass long those memories: WE DO.

Pass the memories along, Lest We Forget.