Also: money. Answering the question of how to name the streets is expensive (doubly so with the nasty political infighting), putting up street labels costs money too, and all of this creates plenty of opportunity for some parties to line their pockets. With that in mind, it's not surprising if the locals find the proposal not cost-effective.
Change is also death. You might say life is about ordering chaos, and upholding and expanding that order, for a while. Of course there's always change, but any and all change isn't automatically "more life" or "better life". When I breathe, that enables my life, and changes stuff around. Yet if the planet fell into the sun, while the molecules in and around me would be even more active and changing, that wouldn't be life.
I'll go you one further: Constant change for the sake of change is the mantra of those who would like you to not have the peace to form a personality and coherent convictions in your mind, because you must not have what they discarded or never had in the first place. That's just as much a slogan as "change is life", but good luck with easily disproving it.
> The ideals of homo faber, the fabricator of the world, which are permanence, stability, and durability, have been sacrificed to abundance, the ideal of the animal laborans.
Constant change is also how people make money by screwing up others. We talk about it frequently here. Disrupt the market, become the new incumbent, get disrupted by newcomers. Rinse, repeat. This process is a battle, and battles have collateral damage, so it doesn't follow that change is always for the better.
Could you elaborate what issues does it come with? I'm biased since I grew up in an area with street names and a consecutive system, but genuinely interested in hearing more.
It's a hassle to have your address changed with every service that wants to send you mail (landlord, utilities, government offices, online shops, magazine subscriptions, etc.), so the change must be considered more valuable than this cost.
In the best case scenario they are very safe choices, that are then reused basically everywhere, sometimes in several places in the same town.
I have seen countless of french towns with "Général de Gaulle" named variations of streets, places, rotaries, small passages etc. It's so overused that it doesn't make sense anymore, people mess with the categories very often (was it a street or a boulevard ? who cares ?)
In the worst case scenario, street names are chosen according to the heroes of the times, or some other political figure that is/will be highly controversial once it has its name on a plaque.
It then becomes an endless battle to find a compromise, avoid further cultural frictions while choosing names that make sense for the town.
For instance in former colonies, street names have often been set to colonial personalities. Some of the (wealthy) residents still support the naming, while others (sometimes minorities) will object to the cultural signification of having these names around for public areas.
These issues are just symptoms of deeper problems, but not using names in the first place just makes things easier.
