Republish
California has seen many towns created, but as population drops a big project has stalled
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
California has seen many towns created, but as population drops a big project has stalled
Share this:
When California emerged from its colonial beginnings nearly two centuries ago and began coalescing into a distinct society, its towns and villages tended to be located either on navigable rivers, such as Sacramento, or around the 21 missions that Spanish explorer priests had established, such as San Diego.
In the late 19th century, with California having experienced a massive population boom during the Gold Rush and become a state, entirely new communities sprung up. These settlements were often carved out of farm and ranch land by developers and railroads, the small San Joaquin Valley city of Hanford being one of the latter.
For example, the small villages south of San Francisco, such as Hillsborough, were designed as refuges for the wealthy from the noise, pollution and violence of San Francisco — and eventually led to the formation of San Mateo County as a protective bulwark.
The creation of new towns continued for most of the 20th century. In Orange County, the descendants of 19th century ranchers converted chunks of their vast holdings into new towns to absorb the region’s massive post-World War II population growth.
The most spectacular example was — and still is — the City of Irvine, named for a ranching family, and home to a quarter-million people and a major University of California campus. Dick O’Neill, heir to a huge Orange County cattle ranch, created two cities — Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita.
On the outskirts of Sacramento, along the Cosumnes River, another ranching family successfully created a stand-alone community called Rancho Murieta.
Creating new towns can be a risky endeavor. Developers can spend millions to plan their new communities and install infrastructure but may wait decades to see a profit.
California City, in the Antelope Valley 100 miles north of Los Angeles, was founded in 1958, but its remote location and somewhat inhospitable terrain and climate made attracting residents difficult. It’s still there and has about 15,000 residents, but that’s way short of the original ambition.
Mountain House, created three decades ago in a corner of San Joaquin County to attract commuters to Bay Area jobs, also struggled, particularly during the collapse of the housing market during the Great Recession. However, it survived: Today it has about 25,000 residents and on July 1 became an incorporated city.
The Tejon Ranch, an immense cattle ranch in the Tehachapi Mountains, has been trying for decades to create a new residential community, but it has faced massive opposition from environmental groups. It is finally beginning construction on an apartment complex.
That brings us to California’s latest effort to carve out a new community, this one in a rural portion of Solano County.
Read Next
Tech-billionaire promises for a new city, from roads to water, are worth hundreds of millions of dollars — if they’re binding
California Forever, a company backed by Silicon Valley billionaires, quietly — even sneakily — bought more than 50,000 acres of ranchland, after which it finally revealed plans for a new community that would eventually have 400,000 residents.
The secrecy and scope of the project generated immediate opposition, particularly after the company said it would seek approval via a November election ballot measure, bypassing hurdles such as the California Environmental Quality Act.
With approval by Solano County voters in doubt, California Forever has shelved its ballot measure. Company officials say they now will strive to gain popular support before proceeding.
The explosive growth that California experienced in the first 170 years of its existence as a state has now abated, probably for good. California has been losing population in recent years and at best it will probably see population stagnation in the future.
That said, California still has a housing shortage, and state policy is to encourage infill projects in or near cities rather than developing open spaces, which California Forever would do.
The chances for California Forever to join the ranks of new town developers are slim at best.
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters