12 California cities in North Coast, North State that are growing
That means the Golden State recouped almost all of the population it lost in 2020 and 2021 — an estimated 358,543 people. It started 2025 with just 9,122 fewer residents than it had in 2020, state Department of Finance population estimates show.
Pockets of growth were spread across far Northern California or the North State and North Coast. Among cities that saw significant growth was Paradise in the Sierra foothills of Butte County, in a sign of ongoing rebuilding since the Camp Fire in 2018 leveled the town.
Overall, 241 California cities had population gains, while 240 other cities saw declines and one — Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County — saw no change, the report found.
Note to readers: If you appreciate the work we do here at the Redding Record Searchlight, please consider subscribing yourself or giving the gift of a subscription to someone you know.
More: Shasta County sees more people leave while California population rebounds post-COVID
Crescent City: This Del Norte County community picked up 468 new residents and saw its population increase to 6,056, an 8.38% growth since 2024.
Paradise: This Butte County city gained 805 new residents and saw its population increase to 11,088, a 7.83% growth since 2024.
Susanville: This Lassen County city picked up 766 new residents and saw its population increase to 12,270, a 6.66% growth since 2024.
Chico: This Butte County city, and Redding's larger neighbor to the south, gained 2,876 new residents and saw its population increase to 113,847, a 2.59% growth since 2024.
Oroville: This Butte County city gained 432 new residents and saw its population increase to 19,653, a 2.25% growth since 2024.
Arcata: This Humboldt County city gained 310 new residents and saw its population increase to 19,001, a 1.66% growth since 2024.
Willows: This Glenn County city gained 103 new residents and saw its population increase to 6,475, a 1.62% growth since 2024.
Corning: This Tehama County city gained 106 new residents and saw its population increase to 8,268, a 1.30% growth since 2024.
Yuba: This Sutter County city gained 672 new residents and saw its population increase to 70,453, a 0.96% growth since 2024.
Yreka: This Siskiyou County city gained 50 new residents and saw its population increase to 7,879, a 0.64% growth since 2024.
Live Oak: This Sutter County city gained 56 new residents and saw its population increase to 9,658, a 0.58% growth since 2024.
Woodland: This Yolo County city gained 217 new residents and saw its population increase to 61,623, a 0.35% growth since 2024.
More: 22 California cities north of Sacramento with slight population losses
Jessica Skropanic is a features reporter for the Record Searchlight/USA Today Network. She covers science, arts, social issues and news stories. Follow her on Twitter @RS_JSkropanic and on Facebook. Join Jessica in the Get Out! Nor Cal recreation Facebook group. To support and sustain this work, please subscribe today. Thank you.
This article originally appeared on Redding Record Searchlight: Which California cities are growing north of Sacramento?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Yahoo
Wall Street sees 35% Canada tariff as just a negotiation tactic: ‘Tariffs are Trump's hammer for every nail'
Canada faces another set of tariffs in its ongoing trade talks with the U.S. However, in this latest round of tariff announcements, investors have learned to largely tune them out as negotiating bluster rather than policy commitments. The White House announced another set of tariffs on Canada. On Thursday, President Donald Trump posted on social media that Canada would be subjected to an additional 35% tariff rate on products not already covered by sectoral tariffs. The reason cited for the new tariffs was Canada's own retaliatory tariffs, which it issued on March 12 in response to earlier levies imposed by the U.S. The new tariffs are set to go into effect on Aug. 1. Trump implemented that fresh deadline after the original 90-day pause, issued in April, expired on July 9. This week, the White House sent letters to multiple countries, including major trading partners like South Korea and Japan, informing them of their recent tariff rates, ushering in a renewed focus on the U.S.'s global trade relations. 'Tariffs are Trump's hammer for every nail that he thinks needs fixing,' said David Bianco, chief investment officer of DWS Americas. Equal to Trump's predilection for tariffs has been his administration's unwillingness to enforce them. In fact, markets are brushing off the latest round of tariff back-and-forths on the assumption the U.S. will continue to hold off on collecting them. 'The base case expectation is that major trading partners that are perceived to be negotiating in good faith will receive extensions to accommodate additional talks,' said Glenmede chief of investment strategy and research Jason Pride. The U.S. and Canada had been in talks for a new trade agreement since last month with the aim of reaching a deal by July 21, according to Canada's Department of Finance. The most recent tariff rate is viewed by some as just a negotiation tactic meant to earn a leg up, rather than a steadfast policy commitment. Fears that the latter was the case ultimately led to a market selloff in April. However, once investors realized the administration's comments about trade policy did not necessarily translate into action, markets roared back. 'The administration's communication on tariffs has been erratic, to say the least. This has contributed to a lot of 'noise around the signal,' and markets are getting a bit numb,' said Christian Chan, chief investment officer at wealth management firm AssetMark. 'Ultimately, I think markets believe deals will get done, but this does show how volatile negotiations can be.' With this new 35% tariff rate, Canada is increasingly subjected to a sprawling web of tariffs. Earlier this year, the U.S. instituted a 25% tariff on all goods not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement Trump signed in November 2018. Canada also faces the same sectoral tariffs the rest of the world does. Those include a 25% tariff on automobiles and 50% tariffs on steel, aluminum, and, starting Aug 1., copper. Canadian energy imports face a 10% tax. Canada levied tariffs of its own against the U.S. with a 25% import tax on roughly $30 billion worth of U.S. goods. In his letter, Trump also threatened to raise those tariff rates if Canada retaliated further. 'If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 35% that we charge,' he wrote in the letter, a screenshot of which was posted on the president's social-media feed. Both U.S. and Canadian stocks sank on Friday. The Dow Jones and the S&P 500 were both 0.4% below Thursday's closing price. Canadian stocks were down 0.14% at the open and were down 0.4% during trading hours by the time of publication. Investors see the likelihood of deeper losses as minimal, as they count on a trade deal ultimately being negotiated. There will be 'little impact to the U.S. or Canadian economy if it is likely … resolved this summer,' Bianco said, though he did add there were near-term consequences to the exchange rate between Canadian and U.S. dollars if the Federal Reserve didn't signal cuts were on the way. Canada's latest economic report, released Friday, far outpaced analyst expectations. The economy added about 83,000 jobs in June compared with a forecast that expected the labor market to be roughly flat. However, Canada does face 6.9% unemployment, which exceeds the 4.1% rate in the U.S. That was still an outperformance as economists had expected an unemployment print of 7.1%. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Yahoo
Companies caught in digital services tax crossfire as CRA won't issue refunds
The Canadian government has been introducing tax policy by press release for far too long. Sometimes it's inevitable in order to restore fairness to the system or to curb perceived abuses. Lately, however, these press releases have been the tool du jour. For example, during COVID-19, tax practitioners were often glued to their screens waiting for the next press release affecting the steady stream of tax measures and extensions. An extension to the filing deadline for the 2022 Underused Housing Tax Returns was made by press release. The same for bare trusts in 2023. Then came the capital gains inclusion rate proposals in the 2024 federal budget. Fraught with problems from the start, the proposals were first 'deferred' until Jan. 1, 2026, by a Department of Finance press release on Jan. 31, 2025, and then apparently killed by Prime Minister Mark Carney through an unusual press release through the PM's website. Now, the digital services tax (DST) was rescinded by a press release on Sunday. The DST applies to certain large corporations and was passed into law in June 2024, retroactive to 2022. The first collections of such tax were required to be made by affected corporations on June 30, 2025. Carney, when questioned about the timing of the announcement, said it 'did not make sense to collect a tax and then remit the revenue back.' In other words, if you're going to repeal it, then do so before it requires payments to be made by taxpayers. But what if affected companies had already paid their otherwise required remittances? I'm aware of some companies that made remittances amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars before the June 30 deadline. Can they now get a swift refund? Well, notwithstanding that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has said it will not require the filing of DST returns or enforce DST payments, it also said it has no legal authority to refund such amounts until the DST legislation is formally repealed. On its face, that may be correct, given that the DST legislation is still valid law, despite the June 29 press release killing it. However, if correct, on what legal authority does the CRA have to not require filing and collection? Where is the symmetry? More importantly, is that fair? It isn't. Why? Let's start with CRA's long-standing policy to administer proposed tax legislation as if it were law. This approach was recently debated during the capital gains debacle: the proposals were on life support, but the CRA was still administering them as if they were law. This caused havoc amongst taxpayers and their advisers. Earlier this month, the proposed one per cent personal tax rate reduction was introduced as a bill to Parliament, but did not pass before it recessed for the summer. In other words, the cut still has substantial legislative hurdles to overcome before it becomes law, retroactive to July 1, 2025. But the CRA is administering this as if it were law and the government is trumpeting the reduction. One of the common threads is that the CRA will administer proposed tax laws if there is legislative intent before Parliament, such as a Notice of Ways and Means Motion or a bill. But a press release? No. It's apparently not good enough when it comes to refunding amounts paid before the press release, but good enough to not require filing and remittance after the press release. Sometimes, common sense needs to prevail, and that was part of the problem with the capital gains debacle. With respect to the DST, we need some common sense. Parliament won't sit again until mid-September, so by the time a bill is presented for repeal, it could be months before the refunds are finally issued. Some solutions? The Digital Services Act provides a refund mechanism under subsection 60(1) as follows: 'If a person, otherwise than because of an assessment, has paid any moneys in error to His Majesty in right of Canada, whether by reason of mistake of fact or law or otherwise, and the moneys have been taken into account by His Majesty in right of Canada as taxes, penalties, interest or other amounts under this act, then an amount equal to the amount of the moneys must, subject to this act, be refunded to the person …' This would seem to give the CRA some wiggle room, but it doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps it is fussed with the opening language of the provision since it is debatable whether such amounts have been paid 'in error,' given the act is still valid law. But if that is the reason, why not continue to enforce filing and collection? This appears to be inconsistent. One tax practitioner has suggested the government should grant a remission order that would instruct the CRA to swiftly refund amounts remitted by those companies. That's a great idea. A remission order is an order issued under the Financial Administration Act that requires the government to pay back taxes and other amounts where the collection of those amounts is unreasonable or unjust or not in the public interest. Given the late June 29 announcement and Carney's apparent agreement that remittance and refunds don't make sense, it would be logical for the government to find a quick solution for those companies that diligently complied with the DST and made their required remittances before the government's press release. Tax by press release may be convenient, but it breeds confusion, undermines confidence and leads to inconsistent tax administration. The CRA's rigid application of its administrative policy doesn't always serve fairness. It's time for both to be re-evaluated. It's just common sense. Kim Moody, FCPA, FCA, TEP, is the founder of Moodys Tax/Moodys Private Client, a former chair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, former chair of the Society of Estate Practitioners (Canada) and has held many other leadership positions in the Canadian tax community. He can be reached at kgcm@ and his LinkedIn profile is __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Yahoo
Colby Cosh: Carney's surrender to Trump was inevitable
One funny thing about the 'elbows up!' slogan of the New Canadian Nationalism is that in real life it's pretty hard to hit yourself with your own elbow. But in the actual policy sphere, most of what we might do to put our elbows up against the United States involves self-harm or, at a minimum, self-denial. On Sunday the Department of Finance issued a terse circular announcing that the Digital Services Tax announced in 2021 would not, as originally planned, begin to be collected on Monday. The DST (R.I.P.) was designed to exclusively target Canadian revenues of American 'web giants' that provide online services, advertising, or streaming content. As the Finance memo observes, it is being dropped at the last minute in the hope of restarting negotiations with the U.S. on an updated version of continental free trade. The idea of a DST was framed by the Trudeau government as a moral necessity of the 21st century: something had to be done about foreign vampires like Netflix and Google which had built businesses with millions of Canadian customers out of digital ether, but paid no tax in Canada. Everybody recognized, however, that much of the cost of the tax was bound to come out of the pockets of the customers rather than the vampires. It's inherently difficult to know how the tax incidence would have worked out, because the process of digital price discovery isn't especially mature: some of these companies are still figuring out their own optimum, revenue-maximizing price points in plain sight. But from a selfish point of view, Canadian consumers, considered strictly as such, can only feel relief at the sudden abandonment of the DST. Is this a craven surrender on the part of the post-Trudeau Liberals? Well, this is the problem with interpreting everything in brute terms of animalistic personal combat, isn't it? The governments of the developed nations largely agree (perhaps against the interests of their own citizens) that there ought to be an international framework for digital-services taxation, and the OECD reached an agreement that nobody would run wild and introduce their own digital taxes until the issue could be sorted out collectively. From that neoliberal-nerd point of view, Canada went rogue when it announced a homebrewed DST — one that would have had a nasty retroactive effect, that was designed specifically only to collect from large American companies with recognizable names, and that didn't address double-taxation issues. And let's recall that Joe Biden was still president when this happened. It's worth noting that this isn't just a question of playing chess against Donald Trump. Canada was really forced to withdraw the DST by the terms of the Trump-designed One Big Beautiful Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May, and now before the Senate. The OBBB reflects the fact that there's genuine bipartisan distaste in the U.S. toward the digital taxes hypothecated by Canada and already in effect in some other countries; it allows for tax-withholding countermeasures against countries that impose 'unfair' taxes on U.S. digital companies, countermeasures whose size could easily have dwarfed the relatively meagre revenues from the DST. In other words, if the government hadn't pulled the plug on the DST, we might have quickly found out how a one-armed man does in a battle of elbows. National Post Kelly McParland: New York swoons over an American Justin Trudeau Joel Kotkin: The West's immigration reckoning is here
