Photograph by John Malmin / Los Angeles Times

People cluster between homes on Malvina Avenue in Chavez Ravine
 for word on being evicted.

The battle over Chavez Ravine reads like the same story after a while — a long court fight with no end in sight.

This time, the state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of
the city's deal with the Dodgers to eventually build the team a new
ballpark. The decision was deemed "the last outstanding legal landmark"
in the case. But any careful reader must have known there were more
steps ahead, more twists and turns.

There were other familiar elements to the story. Dodgers owner
Walter O'Malley was quoted as still hoping the new stadium would be
ready by opening day of 1960. Attorneys for residents fighting the
Dodger deal planned their next moves — again.

City Council members were polled for reaction. Given The Times' long
campaign in favor of the ballpark, it should not have been a surprise
that Rosalind Wyman was quoted extensively but the opposition didn't
exactly get equal treatment.

John Holland, a longtime opponent of the Dodger Stadium deal, said
he would comment once he had read the Supreme Court's decision. There
was no one else to ask? Just the previous day, The Times ran a short
story about Councilman Earle D. Baker's unsuccessful attempt to have
the eviction notices delayed for five families still living in the
Chavez Ravine area. My guess is Baker or some of the six other council
members who voted with him — including Edward R. Roybal and Gordon R.
Hahn — might have been willing to go on the record.

— Keith Thursby

The ills of suburban life and the intellectual benefits of cities.