If Drake lost standing, what about man named Fairfax?

Fairfax Mayor Bruce Ackerman and his town council colleagues are in an awkward spot. They’re considering dumping the name of Sir Francis Drake from portions of the ocean-to-bay boulevard within the town’s boundaries.

s a young man, Drake was involved in the slave trade. The revulsion against associations with slavery is now front and center. It is the basis for the de-naming of the campus formerly known as Drake High, as well discussions about the boulevard.

What’s been long ignored is that Fairfax takes its name from a man and family who were wealthy slave owners. The Ross Valley town’s namesake, Charles Snowden Fairfax, personally benefited from humans held in chattel slavery.

Born in 1829 on Virginia’s Vaucluse Plantation, Fairfax was part of a slave-owning clan. In his book “Tales of San Francisco,” Samuel Dickenson writes “The Fairfax estate was great … hundreds of slaves toiled on the broad Fairfax acres and the gentlemen of the family toiled not at all.”

Benefiting from slave-based wealth as a young adult, Fairfax moved west drawn by the gold rush. Thereafter, Fairfax led an honorable life before dying at age 40. After his mining effort, he moved to the Ross Valley and owned the Bird’s Nest Glen estate where the long-shuttered Marin Town and Country Club now sits. Fairfax was state Assembly speaker, a Marin County supervisor and a renowned host at his splendid home.

Like Fairfax, Drake led a praiseworthy adult life hailed worldwide after his brief role in the slave trade.

Now America faces demands from activists to purge the names of all who don’t meet 21st century standards of political conduct during their long lives.

I’m not suggesting that the council actually dump Fairfax any more than I approve of erasing Drake. The question is where to draw the line. How far should local officials go without asking the voters’ opinion?

I’d draw that line by not memorializing Confederate traitors. Some will argue that Drake’s brief involvement with the slave trade were affirmative actions while Fairfax’s were passive. It’s a matter of degree. Witness San Francisco’s preposterous effort to erase the names of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln from high schools.

There’s a possible compromise. A Fairfax resident wrote to his town council suggesting the road be co-named. That’s often done in New York City, a place with never-ending demands for new street names based on ethnicity and politics.

The notion is that Sir Francis Drake Boulevard be co-named Coast Miwok Trail. Both names then appear on street signs. Anyone can use whichever name they prefer. In New York a major lateral was renamed Avenue of the Americas. Locals refer to it as Sixth Avenue, its traditional and logical moniker. Big businesses and retailers prefer the more formal label. On each corner both names are posted.

Progressives looking for a “victory” won’t be satisfied. It’s the nature of the political extremes both left and right that a compromise is never enough. Others will find co-naming a fair method to promptly move past 2020’s madness.

***

Those in the restaurant trade are anxious to resume outdoor dining. The hospitality sector has been devastated by the pandemic. It may be unfair, but that’s the inevitable result from all natural disasters.

There’s much proof indoor dining — no matter the precautions — will spread the disease. What’s lacking is equivalent evidence that serving meals and beverages outdoors is dangerous.

If outdoor service is not safe, it should remain off-limits but the scientific evidence demonstrating that activity is a COVID-19 spreader is scant. When challenged, the closure of children’s playgrounds was reversed when it became apparent there wasn’t any medical basis for the ban.

Without doubt activities outside of home represent some risk, but closure orders should be based not on certainty but on reasonable risk.

I’m not suggesting that the council actually dump Fairfax any more than I approve of erasing Drake.