And the rules for the apostrophe are invariant and require no finesse, unlike other grammatical devices...

Quote Originally Posted by simonj View Post
I had a teacher once who was a Paul Moran. Might have been Steve Moran. Anywho, he's dead now.

The single most important thing my English teacher taught me is that you can't actually get English wrong. It's an open language and, as such, is subject to change (as it does, constantly).
What the fuck are you talking about? English is subject to change, but it is not an "open language," whatever the fuck that means. Your teacher sounds like one of the stupid idiots that are fostering the mindset that's bringing about inane revisions like this.

Also, change is generally very slow, for good reason. Devices like apostrophes, commas, and the like exist to clarify the meaning of sentences and to lift syntactical ambiguities. Suddenly do away with any grammatical rule, and you're setting yourself up for the danger of doing away with the clarity that such a rule lent to the written word.

I mean, yes: unlike in, say, eating, I will not die if don't follow the rules of English, and I can still function as a human being. I also won't be arrested and thrown in jail, nor will I become a social pariah (though I would advocate this punishment!). However, that doesn't mean that it's an intelligent thing to do...

Anyway, the point of this is that the apostrophes are being dropped where they are part of place names. Personally I'm not too fussed if St Paul's Cathedral becomes St Pauls Cathedral. Anyway, it's not like we haven't had street names modernized slightly before.
The example you provided, while hilarious, still doesn't justify getting rid of a grammatical device altogether. Yes, many place names don't use apostrophes, and in this case it is probably less important. However, this city's officials are speaking as though the apostrophe should be abolished from the English language, which is a terrible idea.