Hmmm, did I hear my name?, as I wake from a fiscal cliff stupor....
"I am also concerned that silverfox3280 and johndd189 even think suggest work arounds..."
I disagree with your overall thoughts about the PNA in FTM. I can only reiterate what I've said before:
".. that PNA is just a tool to help with spelling and to be a bit of a primitive county finder. It is not a requirement that each and every name in your database conform to the PNA. In fact, a researcher could very well record information in their FTM database without ever referring to the PNA and be just fine."
So, I'll continue to do things like freely use five part names for places, especially in areas like New York (which the PNA relegates villages and hamlets to four part place names), or neighborhood names in cities, which takes those places to five places. (Although now FTM2012 has the capability to call these five part names as "resolved" - which will allow them entry into the heirarchical view.)
And, I will continue to simply choose to ignore place names that I find in a record that aren't in the PNA - because they are what they are.
You are approaching this issue as if the PNA is some kind of straight-jacket that you are constrained by. I don't share that view. Again, I consider it as nothing more than a tool, like a spell checker - to assist me; and if I want to enter a place name outside of the constraints of the PNA, so be it.