Right or Wrong Replies

A majority of people participating -- 61.9percent, or 52 out of 84 -- disagree saying the name should be left as it is. Here are some of their comments:

RIGHT: I grew up in Spokane but left in 1974. Now I live in Cape Coral Fl. and I think that the downtown falls is Spokane. I think it's a great idea. I haven't been back since 1984 and I really miss it. I graduated from Rogers High School class of 74'. Change the name, take Spokane into the 21st century with a great new name.
jmermin@msn.com

WRONG: Hi--I am from Redlands, California. I lived in Spokane from 1958 to 1965. Changing the name from Spokane to Spokane Falls is more like a public gimmick running amok. It is better not to change city names as its identity would be lost on the public at large. There are more important things to take care of than change a city name due to a city councilperson having a massive pms attack. Enuf said. Patrick Overlie
overlies@gte.net

WRONG: Thank you Mr. Brewer, but no thanks. If the idea is to truly name the City, name it after the Spokane Royal family. COWLES-VILLE.......
kwithey@eznet.com

WRONG: what's in a name? All that this city has accomplished in the last 80 years or so was done under the name Spokane not Spokane Falls. There is probably no one alive that lived under the name Spokane Falls. The name probably shouldn't have been changed to Spokane but it was. Two wrongs don't make a right.
cvincent@ior.com

WRONG: The Name "Spokane" is known all over the country - it's on maps, in atlases, not to mention all the business cards and stationery, bank accounts and checks, return address labels, souvenirs - what a mess it would be to have to change all that!
jeanneh@spokesman.com

WRONG: Sounds like a good idea to me. Then the hoards of new tourists can all gather on yet another bridge we don't need, stare at empty buildings and gang paintings and imagine what the river used to look like before we became so sofisticated. It indeed must have been a slow summer in Spokane.
davinni@ix.netcome.com

RIGHT: The full impact of a paradigm shift of this magnitude can mobilize a citizenry to achieve a depth of oneness and an inner sense of peacefullness. Brewer has truly "brewed up" a stout one here. While we're at it lets change the name of the Spokane Valley to Walleyworld.
stevenda@iea.com

WRONG: Keep the name of our city Spokane. Why change it?
doyle78@hotmail.com

WRONG: I think it would be far too much of a burden on businesses and individuals who would have to change all their stationary and business cards. Besides I believe Spokane Falls does lack a bit of sophistication like our forefathers before us.
ccadd@ior.com

WRONG: That this is even being discussed makes me grateful that I live outside the bounds of control of the current city council and management. As was the case during his term, it would appear that Mike Brewer, especially, and fellow council members have given NO THOUGHT to the ACTUAL COSTS that could come to the entire area (not just within the city's official boundaries) for many years to come. EVERY ADDRESS within ZIP 992_ _ would have to CHANGE. Why? Because one bonehead out of a seemingly do-nothing group wants to leave a legacy! However, maybe this is just Brewer's brain(?)- child but the rest of the council is playing along to divert attention from the other problems they face. Possible?
lasercyc@gntech.net

WRONG: We've already made a committment to paving the river. It's just a matter of time before the falls are covered with asphalt. Either build the Lincoln Street bridge or change the name; we can't do both.
oliv9637@uidaho.edu

WRONG: Re: Spokane versus Spokane Falls: The suggestion reminds me of idiots in the Federal govt. who propose some new report or action, relatively useless, which ends up costing millions of dollars to implement. They simply have NO IDEA how such things work and what such things cost.
rkeylard@dataweb.nl

RIGHT: If it is possible to gradually transition back the the "Falls" name, I think it should be done. While at it, though, why not consider going back to the original spelling of "Spokan," which would make it easier for out-of-towners to pronounce?
dlocke@cet.com

WRONG: To change the city name is going to cost thousands of dollars. This is an irresponsible way to use taxpayers money!
bartee@inter-face.com

WRONG: It would be very costly to change a name. For one all the official records, city blueprints, and numerous signs, telephone directories, addresses etc. It's a nice emotional, quaint idea, but totally idiotic. The cost wasted on such folly would be better spent on city streets. Kill this dume idea. I work as an engineer for a large utility, and the cost to just rename a single facility has repurcussions that are not immediately visible. The hidden costs are killers. In all city councilmen should be more concerned about relevant issues with more emphasis on priority. Jerry Richards, former Spokanite
jtrvanwa@paclink.com

WRONG: If the city changes its name, it should change the spelling and drop the "e" at the end of Spokane.
dogboy@boink.net

RIGHT: Sounds like they had the right idea way back when. I've lived here all my life, 42 years now. Change is good. Do It!
bfm@iea.com

WRONG: Not only is the change idea just plain stupid, it would be costly. All the government letterhead, envelopes and the like would make an incredible dent in the city budget and I am not going to pay more taxes just for a frivolous move like this!
rjstout@worldnet.att.net

RIGHT: Along with the name change, why not move Spokane to CANADA? That would attract even more tourists, and maximize the novelty effect. The City motto could be something like: "Not just a new name; a whole new ZIP!" Move it now!
peter_black@hotmail.com

WRONG: Our city is plagued with a variety of problems that need to be addressed LONG before we worry about spending millions of dollars we don't have to change the name of the city! Property taxes rose again(for what?!?), we've inched up the gas tax again, our registration fees on automobiles is ridiculous. What on earth happens to all this money? I'm still driving around on roads not fit for a TANK! Oh yeah, we choose to waste it on frivolous or useless things. A name change. HA! After the ice storm last November, we had no money to plow the streets. How about setting aside a larger winter reserve so we don't have to drive on 6 inches of packed snow, and we can see a plow on the road as it BEGINS to snow. Let's choose leaders who have better ideas for our money and our city. A name change. What a waste... Sincerely, Chris Bragg
cbragg@boink.net

WRONG: I've lived here since a young person. I enjoy the river views (now perhaps only temporarily) as much as the rest. If the name is significant to what one may find here, perhaps 'Spokane Potholes' might be a name we all could identify with.
larryko@ieway.com

RIGHT: Spokane Falls would be an excellent name for our fine City! By adding "falls", it tells the world about the most fascinating feature of our City---the incredible falls that pour through Spokane each spring.
natedawg@sprintmail.com

RIGHT: Spokane would actually get some attention from doing this. Also, we probably could use a change.
PC Food@aol.com

WRONG: I have lived in Spokane for 50 years. Why change a good name?
Kathy@omnicast.net

WRONG: Is it worth the time? NO, it would be a waste of tax payers money. Plus all of the firms and industries would have to incure their own time and money to change the name. How much happier would the area be if it changed the name? Wow, a big falls on the end of Spokane! What a difference, not. Plus, you can't hear the falls unless your within a block of them anyway. So, to say the falls "roar right through the middle of downtown" is a misnomer. I hear people honk horns over the sounds of the falls. Its not worth all of the pain and agony of adding falls to the city name. Its absolutly a waste of the publics time and money. Let it go!
x01277@exmail.usma.army.mil

WRONG: I would think it a TREMENDOUS waste of my tax money to change the name. I can think of better ways to spend it.
pingree2@aol.com

WRONG: I don't think we should spend all the money to just change a name. I like Spokane just the way it is why spend tons of money to add Falls to it? It just doesnt make any sense to me.
kaliey@webtv.net

WRONG: What's in a name?
smaxson@ior.com

WRONG: Does anyone in Olympia realize how much it will cost EVERYBODY that has a name relating to the name, to have it changed? We already have Spokane Falls Comm. College. What about SCC? Shoudl we call it SFCC-The Next Generation? Come on, this name might be more accurate in the regional aspects, but in the end, it will be just a pain in the rear for everyone.
nkresse@on-ramp.ior.com

WRONG: The "falls" in Spokane hardly qualifies as a falls, let along a major falls. More like a minor rapids. Have'nt any of the people pushing for this change ever been out of town.
msmsls@aol.com

RIGHT: Changing to Spokane Falls is not a great idea, but it is harmless, so it's Ok, but an even better idea is to change Spokane to Spocan. The original did not have the e on the end. That was added much later. In the 1880's I believe. Spelling the name Spokan would eliminate the Easterners insisting that we are wrong and that the pronunciation is Spo-cane!
will@murrayco.com

WRONG: If our councilmen have nothing better to do than think up stupid things like this to discuss, they should go to a town that already has a two-word name - like Medical Lake - Lakeland Village to be exact. Why not try to solve some problems - not make new ones? Get a life, Brewer!
JimErdman@juno.com

RIGHT: Changing the name would make the city seem new or fresh however the expense may be too much.
NBridg8840@aol.com

WRONG: Spokane is *not* "the only city in North America to have a major falls running right through the middle of downtown", unless you get really picky about what is "downtown". The city of Rochester, NY has two sets of waterfalls within its borders, one near the center. (Another interesting similarity: Rochester (the Flower City) is home to one of the world's largest collections of lilacs, and is reportedly the source of many of those that now grace the Lilac City.)
biermannl@bvu.edu

WRONG: The name is too long, how much would this cost us as citizens of Spokane (Falls)?
JBrown9064@aol.com

RIGHT: I like the name Spokane Falls, but I think the name makes the city seem small. I do like change let's do it!
A-Supra@msn.com

WRONG: I have lived here for 10 yrs. And when I moved Here and visited other places people would ask where I was from, I would say Washington State, and the first thing that would come out of thier mouth's was oh! Seattle? I would reply no! Spokane. It seem's that poor Spokane Washington has been forgottin already so why make thing's worse by changing the name of the city?. I think we need to put spokane back on the map in another way. I feel if the city changed the name it would make us look like a joke to the rest of the world. Let's focus on other important thing's like the road's and the tax's that we all are paying and nothing's being taken care of with it. Thank you!
lorip@ior.com

WRONG: find something better to do with the tax payers money!!
sklfool@aol.com

RIGHT: Mr. Nate Grossmans comment on (quote) I'll be the first to sign on it's a way to let people know what the HELL is here.(unquote) is typical of the language used in todays business world my supposed pillars of the economy, that we don't need floating around. Change the name, get rid of Nate. PERIOD
tsanner@ior.com

WRONG: Everyone has missed the point. Our beautiful City should be renamed Spokaine. That is what everyone who lives beyond a 300 mile radius knows us by. Why confuse them further?
naydd@aol.com

WRONG: It must have been a real slow summer in Spokane.
robiegruss@aol.com

WRONG: A full generation has referred to the city by the name Spokane. I am almost 80 yrs old and Spokane is good enough for me. Besides, the businessmen of the city have enough added expenses without going through the prohibitive expense of adjusting accounts, check and mailing addresses to a new name. Give them a "brake" instead of adding to their already back breaking costs and problems of everyday business.
pepsikid@prodigy.com

WRONG: You know, I have often said, I would visit that major city in Eastern Washington state if it were only named Spokane Falls! Since it is named Spokane, I have absolutely no idea what is there, so why go. I guess I will spend my time going to Walla Walla to see the herds of walla-wallans (which, if I used the same logic of CityName=What'sThere, is what I could expect to see in Walla Walla isn't it?). I congratulate the city council for having all other problems related to running a city completely under control and this is the "only" thing standing between the people of SPOKANE and wild fortunes. Judging a city by its name is the same as judging a book by its cover!
palutwi@cv.telegroup.com

WRONG: As I understand the history of Spokane. The main and most senic section of the Spokane falls is under a lot of water. Due to the construction of the dam between post and monroe streets. The Citys founding Fathers were correct in dropping the "Falls" from the name Spokane Falls.
bru-col@on-ramp.ior.com

WRONG: Now really! Shouldn't we consider renaming Spokane to "@#$*&^", the city formally known as Spokane ?
brodeurfam@sisna.com

WRONG: Changing the name of Spokane is spearheaded by council member Mike Brewer who wishes to leave himself a "legacy". Will all of Spokane bow to a council man who wishes to make a name for himself? Why didn't he make a name for himself while in office by doing something that actually benefits Spokane, instead of wasting the good people of Spokane's time and money with this personalized dream.
Pkramer@ipeg.com

RIGHT: Definitely, Spokane Falls makes more sense to an outsider (as well as anyone who lives here). It says something about the place and it has a poetic rhythm to it. I seriously doubt that anyone will look at "Spokane Falls" as the oppostite of "Spokane Rises." In fact, Spokane Falls, in a name change, may actually help Spokane rise. One last thing...we could enlist the help of the name analysts. If Hollywood types change their names for greater success, why cannot a city change its name for greater success. Do we have any of those numerologists, etc. around willing to do an analysis of the "karma" and "vibes" of Spokane Falls. Spokane needs all the help it can get... I've never liked the name Spokane. It lacks charm.
mopsal@ewu.edu

WRONG: Has anyone at City Council considered just how much the name change will cost us? I don't mean signage and maps, I mean the individual costs associated with a name change. Every business owner will have to get new stationery to reflect the name change. Every individual will need new personal rubber stamps or address labels to keep up with this whim. Oh sure, printers and designers will enjoy it, but we won't. In a time when area codes and zip codes change without our consent, and force ever new and expensive printing costs, we don't need political whims to drive up business expenses just to satisfy some politically selfish legacy. Kevin Vaillancourt 489-6602
cri@sisna.com

WRONG: It would be too confusing to the people outside of Spokane. They have enough problems trying to locate us in the first place.
helpnow@worldnet.att.net

WRONG: Anyone even know what "Spokane" means. "Children of the Sun". So, Children of the Sun Falls is supposed to make sense?
UltimaThule@msn.com

RIGHT: Good paper,good Doug. Clark should run for council and make the city name change a top priority. We can wait a few more years to fix the streets as the additional cost to the taxpayers changing our name would put the pot (holes) on the back burner. Good paper idea?
memo@webtv.net

WRONG: Another example of spending time and dialogue on a 'non issue'.
hmroch@u.washington.edu

RIGHT: Renaming the city might give residents a fresh outlook on life in the inland northwest, and might draw more visitors. Anyway, what would it hurt?
lenore@on-ramp.ior.com

WRONG: Just printing costs would be huge. What would you really gain? Most would still call Spokane anyway. If your not local you would call Spokane "Spocane"
rclark@ior.com

RIGHT: If not Spokane Falls, Podunk would be an appropriate alternative.
gws@orcalink.com

RIGHT: Call me a traditionalist, but I like the name. The Falls is the reason humans gathered here in the first place and are the motive power that created the city's reason for establishment and growth. Maybe I'm just too sentimental.
FlyAK@compuserve.com

RIGHT: It is a better name.
CapJoven@aol.com

RIGHT: Doug Clark mentions the fact that Spokane is the only city in North America to have a falls running right through the middle of it's downtown. It's an important part of our history and something we should be proud of. By drawing attention to the falls we have a chance to save them for everyone's future enjoyment. I vote to change the name!
MSackman@Concentric.net

WRONG: Get real!!! Keep it Spokane.
Lnels@wsunix.wsu.edu

WRONG: What a great way to promote another non-issue.
warchief@ior.com

Wrong: Stuff and nonsense. It is known by this name now. There are many more important things to spend money and time on.
mrail@pacnw.com

RIGHT: In either event, Spokane or Spokane Falls, the final "e" should be dropped ala Olde Curiositee Shoppe. With-e kindest-e regards-e, Bob-e Boyer-e
boyer@ieway.com

WRONG: The city fathers in 1891 had the right idea for perhaps the wrong reasons, but it has been Spokane for so long, I highly doubt that many will be able to adjust to the change.
TgrLdy96@aol.com

RIGHT: So people are saying we shouldn't change things, well, they shouldn't have changed the name in the first place ! I agree, I think changing the name to Spokane Falls would attract more people to our city. But the problem is, many people would still call our city Spokane even if the name was changed.
montsand@ix.netcom.com

WRONG: Why after all the years that have passed should we change the name back to the old name? I say leave it as just plane old Spokane, Wa.
SMKYLE@aol.com

WRONG: Dumb idea. The city council must have something else to spend their time on!
squick@esd112.wednet.edu

RIGHT: And then stop the Lincoln bridge project so that we can still get a view of the falls.
jwavada@ix.netcom.com

WRONG: From a marketing standpoint, I believe it would be best to retain the shorter more commonly recognized name of Spokane. Renaming to Spokane Falls would appear confusing to many remotely familiar with the area.
melville@melville.net

RIGHT: I think that renaming the city to Spokane Falls will give the city a vision for future planning. A vision that we really do not have now.
mkshapiro@hotmail.com

WRONG: Why do so many people always want to change things?? Are they so unsatisfied with there own dull lives that they feel that constant meddling in something or other is some sort of weird comfort? No! Don't change it! If it ain't broke, why fix it??
towjr@iealcom

RIGHT: (Great article by Doug Clark!)
jyoungs@ewu.edu

RIGHT: The waterfall downtown is a pivotal part of who we are. Our city name should reflect that.
tombec@spocom.com

RIGHT: It's a good idea!! Why not?
studly@3-cities.com

RIGHT: As long as we continue to work on Spokane as a great place to visit and work harder at making it difficult to move here.
jam44@msn.com

WRONG: Just because there is a falls running through the city, why rename it? Spokane is a beautiful name just as it is. Leave well enough alone.
s4sjs@aol.com

RIGHT: Water is a special element within a city, and it should be prominently projected as to the character of the region. The falls and the gondola over the river were the first thing attracting us while visiting. I've visited Niagra Falls, and its nature most powerful. A good thing for the area.
pjpl@nidlink.com

RIGHT: Originally the name of the city was Spokane Falls, and though it may seem like a step backward, it would distinguish the city from other Spokanes in the US, such as Spokane, Maine. Now the real problem is getting people to prounounce Spokane correctly.
larin3@televar.com

RIGHT: I think Spokane Falls is a very attractive name. Go for it!
blue_Crayon@hotmail.com

RIGHT: Spokane would marvelously benifit from the name change. Not only in name buy in the community spirit. I think Spokane Falls would certainly make the city standout and would add to its already outstanding atmosphere
4600POL@istres.af.mil

WRONG: Who is it going to help? Not us, we already know about the falls. Anyone visiting Spokane would not visit because Falls is appended to the city name. Spending time and money on something as trivial as this is silly and a waste of money and time. Lets grow up.
bobr@aol.com

WRONG: It's okay if "The Windy City" blows but not okay if Spokane Falls.
topquark@usa.net

RIGHT: Our region seems to have forgotten the awesome sight at our very center. We are about to hide it and cover it with ill-placed bridges and apartments. A name change for the city would re-emphasize where it all came from.
tomharg@compuserve.com

WRONG: Being a nature lover, I like the idea behind changing the name to Spokane Falls, Washington. But I have to agree with the city fathers. It just doesn't have the same ring to it as Spokane, Washington.
mjholmwood@aol.com

RIGHT: Great idea! For once Doug Clark has a good idea and reasons to support it.
rdownen@completebbs.com

Spokane.net: An On-Line Service of The Spokesman-Review