Today Governor Spitzer proposes to name Hudson River Park in honor of the former governor, George Pataki, who in 1998 signed the legislation creating the park, the Sun reported.

If that is the case, this would be the first blunder of the governor’s second year. There are many reasons why such a name change, like others to be proposed, is inappropriate:

Major parks have been named for centuries and should continue to be named for natural features or geographic places. Look at Central Park, Riverside Park, Prospect Park, Pelham Bay Park, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, Forest Park, Inwood Hill Park, etc. When a family name is included in a park, VanCortlandt, Fort Tryon, Fort Washington, their historic name should be more than 100 years old and have a specific geographic relationship with the park such as the Dyckman House and the Wyckoff homestead. Parks are open spaces, part of the outdoors, places that bring us closer to plants and animals. They are not billboards for the names of politicians or anyone else in favor with the legislature.

When a park is named for someone, that person should be dead, preferably for five years. The Catholic Church generally requires a five year waiting period before the practice of beatification and canonization can commence. Although Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa may abridge that period, at least the church waited until they had passed away.

The awkwardness of naming a place for a living person is shown at 42nd Street and Second Avenue, which was named by the City Council “Nelson and Winnie Mandela Square.” Nelson Mandela fully deserves the honor, but Winnie was convicted for the murder of a 14-year-old African boy on her soccer team. Although she received the honor before she committed the crime, does she now still deserve this honor?

When Rep. Ben Rosenthal of Queens died, it was suggested that Flushing-Meadows Park be named for him. As the parks commissioner under Mayor Koch, I went to see Borough President Donald Manes to ask his opinion about the matter. “No,” Mr. Manes told me, “I’m saving that one for myself.” Alas, it was not to be. Although Mr. Pataki deserves considerable credit for his continued support of Hudson River Park, it is a joint state-city park in funding and in governance. If it were to be named for the chief executives who made it happen, Pataki-Giuliani Park would be a more appropriate name. That would be closer to fairness than Pataki Park, but still nowhere near as clear and simple as Hudson River Park.

Furthermore, the legislators who represent the district in which the park lies have not been consulted about this. If there is one thing Mr. Spitzer should have learned from his series of fiascos last year, it is to talk to people who represent an area before announcing grand plans for it.

The name change — and I understand there are others in the governor’s hat — represents another attempt for Mr. Spitzer to regain his lost popularity by pandering to a different group. His unilateral proposal to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, or undocumented persons, which wound up causing Hillary Clinton so much pain, was a similar end-run to gain points with a particular group. His abandonment of his plan, which was under fire by the Department of Homeland Security, the press, and upstate lawmakers led to the Latinos feeling disillusioned by him.

There is a board of directors of the Hudson River Park, five appointed by the governor, five by the mayor, and three by the borough presidents. They learned about the proposal after it appeared in the press. One might think that they, or others who are in the park field, would have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal and to make suggestions before it was leaked to the press.

We understand that this is part of a package of name changes that the governor will propose, whether in the State of the State tomorrow or later in the session. Although the new names may range from harmless to outrageous, they are offensive to those who love parks for what they are, and do not require them to be attached to the names of politicians. So here is a modest proposal:

If the parks do require new names, why not reduce the $4 billion deficit in the state budget by auctioning off the names to the large corporations who would undoubtedly find them to be desirable places in which to advertise their products and their presence? This is now done with stadiums, so why not extend it to parklands?

We could rent rather than sell naming rights because they are bound to become more valuable with inflation. Take Clorox Grand Army Plaza, as a relatively innocuous example.

The Hippocratic oath begins with the words, “First, do no harm.” While people differ as to the amount of good that the State can accomplish with its limited budget and disinclination to upset any special interest groups that contribute to political campaigns, none of us would have imagined that the first proposal we learn about in 2008 is not to deal with any substantive issue, but to degrade our civic heritage by naming historic public places for latter-day politicians. What a shame.

Mr. Stern, president of New York Civic, was New York City’s parks commissioner under Mayors Koch and Giuliani.