Put me in the “tacky” camp. I was uncomfortable with the navy naming an aircraft carrier after Ronald Reagan while he was still alive. I know that he was pretty much gone by then, and it was Nancy who ended up christening the ship, but still. If you’ve got a pulse, you shouldn’t get your name on buildings or other large stuff.
Could someone share for me why it’s “tacky” to have something named for you, by others, celebrating your accomplishments, while you’re alive? 'Cuz I don’t get the objections, except for the arguments, “Things are named in memory of the dead” and “People who are still living might dishonor themselves, so we’ll wait until they are safely dead first.”
Those are quite sufficient, along with “Naming things should not be used as political favours.” Now, admittedly naming something after a dead person could be a political favour too (witness the current brouhaha over the potential renaming of Av. du Parc in Montreal after former premier Robert Bourassa, who happened to be a friend of Mayor Tremblay) but naming things after living people is wide open to abuse. Toponymy is part of the landscape and heritage of the region and should not, in general, be based on political or commercial interests.
Right. Especially in the case of the USS Ronald Reagan, it felt like they were burying him before he was dead 
They also have the USS Jimmy Carter and, more recently, the USS George HW Bush. It’s normal for a Navy ship to be named after a living former President.
Here’s another reason: Typically, the only living persons after whom things are named are monarchs and members of their families. I understood you to have held an entire revolution on that subject.