I have a friend who is a Dodgers fan and he insists that the Dodgers were not responsible as the land had mostly been evacuated and was owned by the city of LA when it was sold to the Dodgers. Can you make the case about the Dodgers culpability a little more clearly and concisely?
The city of Los Angeles is responsible for what it did with what was public property obtained through eminent domain. You have to judge for yourself how much responsibility the Dodgers had in the whole affair. I was not trying to make that case for their "culpability," only recount what happened.
Here's what happened as concisely as I can put it:
The evictions of the three neighborhoods began in the early 1950s under eminent domain so that a large public housing project could be built there (with homes available to people displaced). That's when most people were removed. At this stage, there were no plans or even thoughts of using it for a baseball stadium. It was, in fact, only taken for a public purpose. But plans for the public housing project were dropped in 1953/54. For several years, nothing much happened. The holdouts who hadn't taken the offer of compensation continued to live there.
In 1957, the city offered the site to the Brooklyn Dodgers to entice them to relocate to L.A. The Dodgers agreed. Critics argued that since the land had originally be seized for public-purpose benefit, selling it to the Dodgers, a private business, was not appropriate or legal. Ultimately, there was a city referendum to seal the deal struck with the Dodgers. The referendum passed. At that time, there was still a small number of people living on the site the Dodgers now owned. These remaining residents had refused compensation under eminent domain years prior. They sued and, in the end, lost. The Dodger now owned the land, they wanted/needed it cleared of people - obviously. The police bodily removed those who were still living there, and their houses were bulldozed.
So, yes, the property had been "mostly evacuated" -- but not entirely -- years before the Dodgers got involved in this.
For an excellent, comprehensive account of this, I recommend the book Stealing Home by Eric Nussbaum.
Just read this moving and informative Phila Inquirer tribute to Fernando Valenzuela by hall of fame columnist Claire Smith. She mentions the destruction of the Chavez Ravine community in her article.
Thank you - while I was living in the LA area, I visited this ballpark often - my husband "lost" our car for awhile once as he didn't note its location before going into the game...loooong wait to finally find it. I attended other functions - it's a great park...:)
I have a friend who is a Dodgers fan and he insists that the Dodgers were not responsible as the land had mostly been evacuated and was owned by the city of LA when it was sold to the Dodgers. Can you make the case about the Dodgers culpability a little more clearly and concisely?
The city of Los Angeles is responsible for what it did with what was public property obtained through eminent domain. You have to judge for yourself how much responsibility the Dodgers had in the whole affair. I was not trying to make that case for their "culpability," only recount what happened.
Here's what happened as concisely as I can put it:
The evictions of the three neighborhoods began in the early 1950s under eminent domain so that a large public housing project could be built there (with homes available to people displaced). That's when most people were removed. At this stage, there were no plans or even thoughts of using it for a baseball stadium. It was, in fact, only taken for a public purpose. But plans for the public housing project were dropped in 1953/54. For several years, nothing much happened. The holdouts who hadn't taken the offer of compensation continued to live there.
In 1957, the city offered the site to the Brooklyn Dodgers to entice them to relocate to L.A. The Dodgers agreed. Critics argued that since the land had originally be seized for public-purpose benefit, selling it to the Dodgers, a private business, was not appropriate or legal. Ultimately, there was a city referendum to seal the deal struck with the Dodgers. The referendum passed. At that time, there was still a small number of people living on the site the Dodgers now owned. These remaining residents had refused compensation under eminent domain years prior. They sued and, in the end, lost. The Dodger now owned the land, they wanted/needed it cleared of people - obviously. The police bodily removed those who were still living there, and their houses were bulldozed.
So, yes, the property had been "mostly evacuated" -- but not entirely -- years before the Dodgers got involved in this.
For an excellent, comprehensive account of this, I recommend the book Stealing Home by Eric Nussbaum.
Just read this moving and informative Phila Inquirer tribute to Fernando Valenzuela by hall of fame columnist Claire Smith. She mentions the destruction of the Chavez Ravine community in her article.
https://www.inquirer.com/phillies/fernando-valenzuela-dodgers-legacy-world-series-20241025.html
Robert Moses woulda smiled
Thank you - while I was living in the LA area, I visited this ballpark often - my husband "lost" our car for awhile once as he didn't note its location before going into the game...loooong wait to finally find it. I attended other functions - it's a great park...:)
sounds similar, in some respects, to the Sixers proposed new arena, adjacent to Philadelphia's Chinatown.
I don't know about that. I'll look into it. Thank you
The public housing got relocated to the abandoned ball park sites in New York. A great mess all around.