Beet Sugar, Cows, and Bedrooms:

The Transformation of Chino from a Rural

Community to a Modern Suburb

 

 

 

Bryan Musslewhite

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senior Thesis in History

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Spring 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advisor: Zuoyue Wang

Grade:


            Perhaps no one better exemplifies the residents of Chino than Doug Ellington. Ellington, a simple family man, had been born, married and probably will die in the city of Chino, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. His life has been rooted in the very history of the city, being wed by a direct descendant of one of the city’s founders, Don Antonio Maria Lugo. Sitting in his living room now in his late 60s, Ellington remarks about the city he knows so well:

 

The majority of farmers who came to Chino when I was young were family farmers who focused on growing crops such as walnuts, corn, sweet potatoes, peaches, black eyed peas, and summer squash. Of course it’s not like that anymore but that’s how it used to be anyhow.[1]

 

            Indeed the Chino of today looks far different from the sleepy farming town described by Ellington. The Chino of today is a “bedroom community” populated with families and business. In 2000, the population of the city had reached 70,000 residents and included more than 2 million square feet of retail space.[2] With land values ever increasing within the city, more of the city’s glorious agricultural past is moving out and retailers are moving in. While the Chino Valley still holds the largest concentration of dairy farms and cows per acre in the entire country, these dairies are located on the outskirts of the city and it is entirely possible to drive through the city today and be completely unaware of the city’s agricultural roots.

            Chino was founded by the Kukamonga Indian tribe and upon the arrival of the Spanish, the lands which included Chino would become a part of the San Gabriel Mission. By the time of the Mexican Independence, Don Antonio Maria Lugo would be granted by the Mexican government the 47,000 acre Rancho del Chino de Santa Ana and his family would become the city’s first residents. Then in 1850, Arizona silver miner, Richard Gird would move to Chino. Successful from his ventures in the mining industry, Gird purchased Rancho del Chino de Santa Ana from the Lugo family. Gird named a portion of the ranch simply Chino and soon he was able to bring a prosperous sugar beet industry into the city.

            Although the sugar beet industry within Chino would die before the great depression of the 1930s due to rising seed prices, the industry had brought incorporation to the city in 1910, along with police and fire services. Chino’s growth was then limited until 1950s when the post-war boom  brought unprecedented population growth into Los Angeles and southern California. Chino would emerge as a leader in the dairy industry, helping to feed the emerging Los Angeles metropolis. Chino would maintain itself as a bustling agricultural community well into the 1980s, when rising population and land values in the latter part of the decade finally began to change the city’s dynamics. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, this once small suburb of Los Angeles had metamorphosed into a city of urban residents and had one of the most thriving economies in the region. 

Chino’s history both twists and fits, the traditional pattern of suburban development characterized by historians and social scientists. In general,   Suburbanization has been a subject more critically analyzed in sociology than in history. Sociologists have taken a unique interest in suburbanization as a topic because the suburb has provided a means via which a good majority of Americans have interacted with their social environment. . As historian Kenneth T Jackson noted in 1973 in reference to Orange County the typical citizen of the county would state something like, “ I live in Garden Grove, work in Irvine, shop in Santa Ana, go to the dentist in Anaheim, and my husband works in Long Beach.”[3] Historians, on their parts, have both provided the information and details on suburban development for other scholars and have came to their own conclusions about the process.

            Historical inquiry into the process of suburbanization has largely come in the form of regional and individual case studies. The case studies have revealed that there is a rather consistent pattern, with suburbs  of the 19th century expanding via the outskirts of large cities such as Boston or Philadelphia, with former slum area turning into viable suburban communities. Moreover, historians have generally concluded that factors such as the automobile, crime, congestion and pollution have generated 20th century suburbs creating periphery residential and retail communities in which citizens commute into the central city for work.

            In 1973, Jackson presented, in his The Crabgrass Frontier: 150 Years of Suburban Growth in America, one of the most comprehensive reviews of suburban development in the United States. Through the usage of census data, Jackson is noted that the population of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia had decreased by nearly 2 million from 1950 to 1973,[4] while the population of the “suburb” cities had nearly doubled.[5] Jackson ultimately comes to the conclusion that this population decentralization movement was largely a result of the availability of the automobile which permitted Americans to live at a distance from the inner city workplace. Jackson remarks that a burgeoning suburb can easily be spotted wherever there are added residents between each decennial census and when the city’s “fathers” are concerned with the relative standing of their community in comparison with others.[6]

            Jackson also develops a model in which he believes suburbanization occurs, with the second and third stages being agricultural establishment and suburbanization respectively.[7] Clearly Jackson believes that suburban development is a process which includes a shift away from agricultural industries, as agriculture in Jackson’s model is at a stage below that of the suburb. Similarly Jackson also remarks that “every multi-lane ribbon of concrete was like the touch of Midas, transforming old pastures into precious property.”[8] Jackson firmly conveys that a suburb involves the turning of rural, agricultural communities into proverbial “concrete jungles.”

Following Jackson, historian Michael Ebner argues that suburb development can be linked directly with the concept of “urban population deconcentration.”[9] Ebner believes that suburban expansion relied upon the availability of efficient transportation and poor urban living conditions which literally forced middle class citizens to the outer limits of the large city. Ebner also expands upon Jackson’s ideas in two key areas. For one, Ebner asserts that “counter-subarbanism”[10] will eventually take effect in which inner cities and suburbs will become in essence one and the same. As more and more inner city citizens become dissatisfied with inner city conditions they will naturally migrate out to nearby areas. Ebner hypothesizes that as these nearby areas accumulate population, eventually it will be indistinguishable to tell the suburbs from the cities henceforth “counter-subarbanism” takes effect in which it is impossible to tell suburb from city and city from suburb.  Ebner also brings forward that the “suburban process” is a slow one and points out that it took several decades for the London suburbs to come in existence despite the fact of quality roads and bridges just outside the city and poor living conditions within the city. Ebner proves through his London example that suburbs do not just appear overnight. Ebner establishes in his paper that Jackson’s line of thinking can be successfully expanded through further detailed microcosm examples.

Although not a suburban historian per se, California historian Carl Palm, also sets forth a vision of suburbanization in his The Great California Story. Palm tells of the transformation of Southern California during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s as being a time of dramatic changes. Palm notes that in the city of Anaheim, population had grown from a little less than 15,000 in 1950 to almost 250,000 in 1980.[11] Furthermore, Palm further notes that in Orange County during the 1950s orange trees were being uprooted at a rate of one per every 55 seconds. Palm concludes that this agricultural displacement was needed for Orange County cities to become suburbs and remarks that “countless of acres around the state who once grew things were (scooped out)  …. to make for an avalanche of new residential and commercial construction.”[12]

With historians in virtual agreement, sociologists utilized this data to define that which we know as the suburb. Some of the early sociologists to define what a suburb is would be Joanne Eicher and Richard Kurtz in 1958. Eicher and Kurtz define in Fringe and Suburb: A Confusion of Concepts that a fringe area involves a mixed economy of rural and urban, consisting much of farmland. They go on to conclude that an area can be characterized as suburban when land use is strictly urban with very few farms. This early and influential work helped frame for future sociologists and historians what they should look for when they are attempting to study the suburbia phenomenon.[13]

Mark Baldasarre, pollster and sociologist, further tackled suburbia in his 1992 work Suburban Communities. Baldasarre defines suburban communities as being “sprawling, low-density land use, an absent downtown district, and the existence of a politically fragmented local government.”[14] Baldassare goes on to describe that rural areas can be identified by their economy being primarily based in agriculture rather than in manufacturing and services. Baldasarre re-enforces the other authors in the sense that he concretely defines what he believes a suburb to be and what he believes a rural area to be.[15] Clearly Baldasarre is of the opinion, that despite its booming population and incorporation, that Chino with a strong agricultural economy and extensive stretches of farmland would not be considered a suburb at all.

Baldasarre agrees with Ebner when he notes that suburbanization is a slow process. “Especially,” Baldasarre says, “if one is looking at suburb development in the 19th century.”[16]  Baldasarre believes that suburb development can occur fairly rapid if modern transportation such as automobiles and highways are available along with affordable housing. Baldasarre also displays in his work the political and economic force of the suburb and gives good reasoning for why the suburb is emerging as political force in recent presidential elections. Baldasarre asserts that the suburb is a necessary element to American society due to American social and political makeup, which most certainly harkens back to the American Jeffersonian ideology of the past.

            So, where does the city of Chino fit in with the traditional suburban development models established by these authors? Does it fit the model at all? At first glance, it seems clear that Chino does not perfectly fit the formula for which suburban development should occur. Chino is still largely agricultural in economy yet it most certainly has the manufacturing, retail, and services of any other modern suburb economy as well. Although Chino is undeniably a suburb of Los Angeles, its dairy industry makes this city a special circumstance unaccounted by previous suburb-urban historians and sociologists. Through analysis of the Chino situation, it is apparent that Chino is agricultural and suburban at the same time, and therefore proves that suburbs can be economically agricultural while maintaining status as a suburb.

Regional Background

            With the focus of this paper on suburban development, we can trace Chino’s development as a suburban community back to the early 20th century. First, however, one must understand the development of Southern California and Los Angeles during the early 20th century. Southern California and Los Angeles experienced astounding growth during the pre-World War II era.  Two big factors which turned these wheels in motion were the discovery of oil and the development of the motion picture industry.

            Oil was discovered in Los Angeles in 1892 by Edward Doheny and Charles Canfield about a mile northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Dohney and Canfield quickly realized that there was a treasure trove of oil underneath the city and made waves with their 45 barrels a day production. Soon after the news of their production got out, numerous individuals swarmed the city in an attempt to strike it rich. By 1897, a mere five years later, the city boasted some 2,500 oil wells. The “oil boom” would have numerous effects upon the area. “It provided low price fuel for new industries, thousands of new jobs, and the capital to build new homes and streets.”[17]

            The film industry would emerge in Southern California during the 1907 production of The Count of Monte Cristo. Desperate for a warm place to film, director Francis Boggs and cameraman Thomas Persons, set out for Santa Monica Bay for a large outdoor scene of the picture. They established a studio in downtown Los Angeles and more studios would follow in the ensuing years. Soon going out west to make it in the “movies”, became an ambition associated with the American dream. Furthermore since filming was conducted year round, Los Angeles also became associated worldwide for friendly weather and year round sunshine. With the reputation, climate and resources set, Southern California was primed for expansion.

            Transportation tycoon, Henry Huntington, witnessed this development firsthand and by 1908 helped to connect “Greater Los Angeles” via railway. Huntington’s railway ran from San Bernardino to Long Beach and each time a stop was added, the stop would soon became a suburb for Angelinos to live in. Huntington’s development would permit Southern California to grow like never before. Between 1920 and 1930 the state grew by 2,000,000 people, with 72 percent of those moving into the Southern part of the state. [18] Furthermore, Los Angeles County gained 1,272,037 new citizens during the 1920s and the city of Los Angeles itself increased in population by 115 percent. [19]

Chino’s Early History

            Chino arrives into Southern California history as one of the train stops devised by the Southern Pacific railroad. In the 1890s, Chino was rated the second largest freight depot outside of Los Angeles in volume of freight handled[20] Chino at the time was managed by Richard Gird, a silver miner from Arizona. Gird had a dream to turn his town into an industrial machine and experimented with numerous crops in an attempt to figure out what the town could produce well.  Gird eventually stumbled upon sugar beets and soon bargained to get a factory built in his town. In 1890, Gird convinced the wealthy and then leading beet sugar producing Oxnard Brothers to fund his beet sugar facility and was given a ten year contract. By 1900, the plant turned out 12,000 tons of sugar each season.[21] Gird also wanted his young city to develop its own identity and helped to charter the establishment of the Chino Champion newspaper in the early 1890s. Even today the Chino Champion is still in operation with its offices located directly across the street from city hall.  With the success of the factory and the failing health of Richard Gird, 1901 brought private industry to the city and the city would slip out of the hands of Richard Gird.

            The new owners of the city, The Chino Land and Water Company, continued the prosperous sugar factory, but also organized a large scale promotion scheme beginning around 1904. The promotion centered around cheap land which could be had for 70 to 125 dollars an acre and was an early part of the famous Southern California boosterism movement in which people from around the country and world were attracted to come live the California lifestyle of sunshine, healthy living, and fresh food as far as the eye could see. Thousands of acres of land which formerly were desert were now to be made into farmland. The buyers of these land lots were crucial to the early development of the city as they constructed buildings, developed a water supply and built pipelines. Soon Chino was an area which produced alfalfa, corn, potatoes, grain, walnuts, apple, peaches, apricots and beets for sugar.

            During the time period of 1910 and 1920, Chino was a town controlled by the American Beet Sugar company. At this time, Chino sugar production would become a 11 million dollar a year industry and nine different facilities could be found within the city.  The facilities also employed a majority of the city’s residents and even brought some tourist trade as other nearby locales were naturally curious to see how sugar could be extracted from the lowly beet. The American Beet Sugar industry also was pivotal in establishing the city’s rich dairy tradition. They helped to fund the G.S. Moyer dairy in 1916 and this particular dairy was one of the city’s earliest commercial dairies. The Moyer dairy was a large scale facility and would even absorb some smaller dairies, like the facility operated by A.G. Keene. [22] During this time period, local citizens also established a local baseball club which played other cities. The baseball club served as the one of the city’s principal means of entertainment in these times and usually the team played teams which hailed from Los Angeles. Baseball teams weren’t the only Los Angeles influence which could be found within Chino, Los Angeles hotels filled the Chino Champion with ads for their hotels. Since train services were available for most Chinoans, Los Angeles was seen as a fun and affordable weekend getaway for the farming population.

            During its early history, Chino also saw an explosion in its immigrant population. A big source of these immigrants hailed from the Scandinavian country of Sweden. Often the Swedish immigrants who came to Chino worked at the sugar beet factory where they could often make a nice living. Many of the early church services in Chino, were actually conducted in the Swedish language. Generally the Swedish people who immigrated to the city were relatively welcomed. Differently than the Swedes, however, Mexican-American citizens were not welcomed with the same enthusiasm. Oddly enough, the city had been founded and discovered by Mexican citizens after the Mexican Independence. In fact, it was even until the 1880s that the city had its first white residents with the construction of the Yorba-Slaughter adobe in which the Slaughter family would make Chino their home. Nonetheless, early 20th century Mexican-American citizens of the city lived in a poor area of the city known as “Sonora Town.” Mexican-American citizens had little opportunity in the early days of Chino and were labeled throughout the teens in the Chino Champion newspaper as being alcoholic, unruly and insane. Mexican-American citizens of Chino were denied basic human rights and were often arrested for the most frivolous of charges. An example of these episodes would be the arrest of four Mexican-American men in 1916 for merely playing in a poker game.[23] Also it was not at all uncommon for Mexican-American citizens filing complaints for a crime committed against them to be arrested themselves![24] Truly the early days of Chino’s history were filled with racial prejudice and injustice which greatly affected the livelihood of some of its citizens.

            In 1917, with outrageously rising seed prices in Germany, the sugar beet factory in Chino would be shut down. While many did lose their jobs, new opportunities arouse in the canning industry. Soon Chino was a leader in agricultural production in the county and canneries from far and wide were anxious to set up shop in Chino. A big priority to Chino’s citizens during this time was water. Water was essential to the city’s industry and was most certainly not an uncommon site to see the city’s citizens organize to protect their water. Moreover the city was beginning to look more and more like a city rather than a close knit, rural agricultural community. Many schools were built in the 1920s and the citizens of Chino made the education of their youth a top priority. By the end of the 1930s, the Chino Champion often boasted of its youth graduating from the University of California at Berkeley. A city mail service was also established in the 1920s which would service the area on a daily basis. Chino dairymen also established quite the reputation for themselves setting records with the Cow Testing Association. By 1926, Chino dairymen were already receiving high honors in the county, state, and nation for production. The early Chino dairymen were certainly establishing Chino as a fine place to conduct dairying. Chino High School was also breaking records in 1926 with its largest graduating class ever of 43 students. Clearly the community was establishing roots and a base group of leaders and families who were ready and able to make the advancement of the city of Chino part of their life’s work.

            One of these community leaders was Adolph Whitney, originally from Austria-Hungry. Whitney had migrated to the United States when he was just 11 years old and settled with his family originally in Minnesota. When World War I ended, agriculture in the Midwest went into a slump. Losing his farm due to hard times and bovine tuberculosis, Whitney packed up his family and headed towards California. In 1923, Whitney landed a job as a cow tester for San Bernardino County and put into practice theories he had learned while attending Northwestern University. Soon thereafter, Whitney opened the Royal Dairy in Chino on what is now Riverside Drive and found success taking over the local dairy routes of the Mount View Dairy. Whitney insisted on cleanliness, instituting his workers wear clean clothes and that his cows be washed and scrubbed. He also banned feeding in the milking houses and scrubbed that facility regularly as well. Whitney’s cows avoided tuberculosis in the late 1920s and 1930s, so the fact that Chino dairymen received many accolades during this era should not be a surprise to anyone. Leaders like Whitney undoubtedly attracted more and more dairymen into the Chino Valley, where dairying was becoming more clean, efficient and professional. [25]

            The 1930s were generally as unkind to Chino as they were to any other United States city at the time. The town never fully recovered economically from the collapse of its sugar beet industry in 1917 and Mayor George Decker was desperate to spur growth within his small city. Decker ultimately finalized the construction of the Chino Institute for Men. In the eyes of Decker and the majority of Chinoans, the advantages of having a prison in town far outweighed the disadvantages. The prison was believed to bring in more jobs to the city with little to no danger of inmate escape. The prison was built on the south end of Central Avenue and today serves as a boundary between the cities of Chino and Chino Hills.  

            The 1930s also saw the continued growth of the Chino dairy industry. In 1938, Chino dairies won awards for production and took fifteen of eighteen awards in the Annual County Contest.[26] Indeed the storied reputation of the Chino dairy industry continued throughout the 1930s. Moreover, Chino’s race relations seemed to be improving dramatically. In the 1930s it was not at all unusual for Chino High School students to take part in Spanish language plays and the “Mexican Colony” was allowed to hold a large two-day Independence festival.[27] Clearly Chino’s Anglo citizens were at least by the 1930s on a path to toleration of their fellow Spanish-speaking citizens.

Chino during and after World War II

            Chino in the 1940s focused on the World War II effort. Many of the city’s families sent their young men into battle and Chino as an agricultural community played a big role in producing food for the soldiers overseas. The production of the apricot crop within Chino greatly increased during World War II as the apricot could remain canned and fresh for a longer period of time than most agricultural products. Chinoans were very dedicated to the American cause and this is very evident by a peek within the Chino Champion newspaper. Nearly every story during this time period was focused on the war and how Chinoans could better help the war effort. The Chino Champion was also filled with ads by Lockheed Martin and Northrop, two large engineering companies which desperately needed workers to make planes and other equipment towards the war effort. The immergence of the aerospace industry would have a great impact on the history of Chino and the history of Los Angeles. Workers from all over the country in need of work would fill Los Angeles County, driving up land values and pushing agricultural industries out of the county. In the post-war period, therefore, Chino was then ready to assume a role as one of the world’s largest and most efficient milksheds.

            Indeed the emergence of the aircraft manufacture industry in Los Angeles had a big impact on the city’s industrial growth. By the mid 1940s, Los Angeles made more oil field machinery than any other city on the earth, was second only to Detroit in manufacturing automobiles, and second only to Akron in producing tires.[28]Los Angeles at this time also became a leader in the production of furniture, fish cannery, petroleum, and food processing. Between 1941 and 1947 Los Angeles county moved from 11th place among U.S. industrial centers to 7th.[29] Los Angeles was also a city shaped by the automobile and already by 1947, the city had its first freeway. The freeway system permitted the city to grow outwards and it did so at a rapid rate. In 1941, the Colorado River aqueduct was completed and extended the water capacity to the level in which it could provide water for over 10,000,000 citizens, but even this was not enough to support the booming population. [30]

            The television industry would also arise in the early 1950s and the Los Angeles film industry was quick to jump on the bandwagon. Already in 1950, the Los Angeles Times was beginning to remark that “some eager beaver manufacturers are trying to sell us a second set for our kitchens.”[31] By 1955, Hollywood was producing ten times as much entertainment material for national television as it was for film for moviegoers. The combination of the television and film industry both being located in Los Angeles made the city the so called “entertainment capital of the world.” Now world over, Los Angeles was identified as a desirable place to live and would shape future immigration patterns within the city. By the mid-1950s, Los Angeles boasted as America’s number one producer of aircraft, motion pictures, houses, canned seafood, refrigeration and heating equipment, and pumps and compressors.[32] Los Angeles was also a leader of the supermarket industry, already by 1939 the city had more than 300 supermarkets.[33] In the 1950 census, the city just missed the 2,000,000 mark, short by 45,964 residents.[34] Land values were also on the rise with land adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway increasing by 14% in 1955.[35] With such a large, consumer based population its no wonder that the suburban community of Chino would emerge as an agricultural producer for Los Angeles during the post-World War II era.

               Chino’s development into a major milkshed coincided roughly with this rise of Los Angeles. After the Second World War’s contribution to the Southern California economy, Los Angeles now had a very visible and large workforce. Moreover, the demand for residential land and space for parallel commercial development skyrocketed. It was clear to Southern California dairymen that it was more profitable to take their operations somewhere else. With land values increasing at a rampant rate, Los Angeles county dairymen quickly found a home in nearby Chino located within San Bernardino County.

            Chino truly was the perfect place for Los Angeles county dairymen. From 1947 to 1955, the number of dairies in the city of Chino had increased from 64 to 110.[36] The Chino Champion noted that 25 dairies had been constructed in the city from 1954 until 1955 as a result largely of the flight of greater Los Angeles dairymen.[37] The city also cleared the way for dairymen by clearing the city’s prime and central real estate for dairy development. A clear example of this would be the establishment process of a dairy on the southwest corner of Norton and Riverside Drive in 1955.[38] The corner of Norton and Riverside drive of today is typically known for being primarily residential and separate from the traditional dairy region of the city. At this time period, however, dairy establishment was at the forefront of the city’s agenda and thus no hurdle or objection from the city’s residents could stop the seemingly unending dairy construction.

            By the middle of the 1950s, Chino’s annual gross agricultural receipts had hit the 26 million dollar amount and milk at $7,974,884 was now the city’s largest agricultural commodity.[39] The process of dairying became a phenomenon which even became a part of the lives of the city’s least reputable citizens. The Chino Institute for Men, prison, had a cow which broke records for the highest single day milk production.[40] Truly it seems remarkable to think that even inmates were a part of this dairying boom!

            While the city was experiencing this tremendous dairy boom, the city also became more and more similar to a modern suburbia. Population exploded in the 1950s, San Bernardino County and Chino had grown by 29% in population from April 1950 until April 1955.[41] This rapid population expansion was occurring all over Southern California suburb .  If Chino was not a suburb, then indeed its population would have remained stagnant during this era similar to other rural areas in Southern California. Moreover, with most of its population growth hailing from Los Angeles county and it’s close proximity to that county, many Chinoans viewed themselves as an extension of Los Angeles itself. In fact as Los Angeles developed into a metropolis, it becomes clear that Chino emerged more and more as a breadbasket. There most certainly is a strong connection between Chino peaking its agricultural production each year in the 1950s and the Los Angeles area’s multiplying population. Virtually as Los Angeles emerged as a major city so did Chino as an agricultural center.

            Chino seemed to appear as a modern suburb as well. Chino’s major roads were paved and relatively well taken care of. It contained a central downtown business region in which citizens could take care of their needs and wants. It also had a large high school, weekly newspaper, and police and fire services. Indeed, as Baldasarre suggested, if a region becomes a suburb via a shift away from agricultural industry then this is indeed not the case we find in Chino. The citizens of Chino embraced agricultural development while trying to emerge their community as a viable suburban community.

            Unlike many suburban communities, however, Chino of the 1950s was an unusual suburban community in the way it approached its immigrant and multicultural population. Since European immigrants were often new to the country themselves, the community was slightly more tolerant than others at the time.  Mexican culture and tradition was appreciated, plays like “Solo Por Amor,” were favorites among locals.[42] Dutch, Portugeese, and Swiss immigrants were also embraced, yodeling contests and other European entertainments were also very commonplace.  June was also declared “Dairy Month” and the citizens of Chino tried to emphasize their importance in a historical sense. The citizens of Chino saw themselves as a part of a rich dairying tradition, which had been in existence in human history for over 15,000 years. [43]

Dairy and the Transformation of Chino during the 1960s-1980s

           

By the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the population shift of California had been complete. By 1960, half of all Californians lived in the Southern part of the state and by 1975 almost seventy percent lived in Southern California with over 30 percent of the population living in Los Angeles County alone.[44] Many were heralding Southern California’s versatility, the Los Angeles Times noted that during the 1960s and beyond that Southern California would expand by both suburban expansion and by the creation of high rise living in Los Angeles.[45]  Indeed “No one who bore witness to Southern California’s transformation from about the mid-1950s on would deny that bulldozers played a huge part in making the area into what it would become by the year 2000.”[46] In the early 70’s it appeared that California’s growth may finally come to a stop. A weakening job market and rising inflation along with crime, pollution, and traffic congestion began to give Southern California a negative image.[47] While these factors undoubtedly encouraged thousands of residents to leave the state behind, Southern California would still find population growth in new immigrants from the Pacific Rim and Latin America. By 1975, the Los Angeles Times was filled with articles pertaining what to do with these sometimes illegal immigrants from the Pacific Rim and Latin America.[48] During the 1980s alone, the population of California would grow by more than five and a half million people.[49]

            Of those five and half million people to move into California during the 1980s, three million of those residents would move into the greater Los Angeles area.[50] “By the end of the 1960s Los Angeles was North America’s largest Japanese city and was the second largest Mexican city in the world. (only Mexico City was larger)[51] It also contained a large Jewish, Filipino, American Indian, and an African-American population which was greater than any city in the American South.[52] The city continued to grow as an international center throughout the 1970s and 1980s and by 1980 over eighty different languages were spoken in the city.[53] During the 1960s,1970s and 1980s Los Angeles also continued to evolve economically. By the early 1980s, Los Angles was the “West Coast’s leading commercial and industrial center.”[54] Los Angeles became not only crucial to the economy of California and the United States but also to the Pacific Rim. Several leading electronic and construction firms set up shop in the city and foreign trade would compromise a big chunk of the business activity that went on in the city. In this era of the history of Los Angeles it is apparent that the city had emerged at the forefront of the world’s major metropolises.

Chino during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s bore striking similarities to the development of Los Angeles. Unlike Los Angeles, however, Chino developed a stronger agricultural industry to accompany its rapidly expanding population and industrial economy. This surging agricultural industry was fueled by the local dairying industry which took shape as a juggernaut of production. By the mid 1970s, milk profit in the city  exceeded 100 million dollars.[55] Truly, Chino as the agricultural suburb is best exemplified during this thirty year era.

            The most evident feature of this period of Chino’s history would be the extraordinary population and industrial growth. Industrial growth occurred in a variety of ways. A great example would be the California Brass Mfg Co. which migrated to the city in 1961. The company brought 80 new jobs into the city and developed, manufactured, sold and distributed brass and bronze valves and fittings for water, steam, air, oil and gas fixtures.[56] Also in 1961, a major meat packing plant migrated to the city on the corner of Schaefer and Yorba. The plant was the first federal packing plant built in Southern California outside the Los Angeles area in more than 20 years.[57] In 1965 alone the city added a Uniroyal Tire Plant, a Chevrolet car dealership, several auto body shops, two pizza parlors, a shoe store, and a formal dress shop.[58] The Mary Carter Paint plant was also a highlight of the emerging Chino industrial industry. By the mid- 1960s the facility was already producing over a half a million gallons of paint a year and had an estimated value over 2 million.

            The city received its largest industrial endorsement from the Edison company which itself had facilities in the city. In 1966, Edison printed a 2/3 page ad in the Wall Street Journal promoting the benefits of Chino as an industrial site. The ad firmly stated that Chino was “Greener Pastures for industry- Only 37 minutes from Los Angeles” and that “As a plant site, Chino could be the greener pastures your company is looking for in Southern California.”[59] The ad goes on to state that Chino is an optimal industrial site because of the availability of inexpensive land, close proximity to the Los Angeles area, excellent school system, and the extensive availability of low cost energy. Undoubtedly, it was in Edison’s best interest to bring industry into the city and henceforth make their Chino facilities a profitable enterprise for the company.  Thereafter a very common sight in the city of Chino for the next 25 years was the sight of bulldozers clearing old homes and businesses for new commercial development and homes to house these workers. Business development listed in Dun and Bradstreet showed that the number of businesses in the city had increased from 159 in 1959 to 216 in 1966.[60] Similarly by 1980 the city had enough population to warrant a third Alpha Beta Supermarket and a Food Barn discount grocery barn. Business, commercial and industrial alike, was clearly on the rise during Chino’s golden age as an agricultural suburb. 

            The biggest landmark to affect the city’s population was the finishing of the Pomona freeway in 1971. By 1975, Chino was identified as the fastest growing city in Southern California. Its population in the 1970 census was 20,411 residents. By 1975, its population had reached 27,650.[61] That’s over 7,000 new residents in just 5 years.  Residential construction was over 17 million in 1974 with over 595 new single family home permits being issued and over 19 million in 1973 with over 762 new ingle family home permits being issued.[62] There were 1,901 permits issued for single family homes between 1971 and 1975 alone.[63] With its close proximity to the counties of San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside and Los Angeles and being only 37 miles out of downtown Los Angeles, Chino was a welcomed choice to live in by many commuter families. By 1975, Chino was 8th in the state in building with over 16 million dollars in building permits. Only the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Yorba Linda, San Diego and Thousand Oaks outranked Chino in building permits issued.[64] By the early 1980s, the city had nearly doubled its population from 1970 with nearly 40,000 residents.[65] Chino was only outrivaled by Rancho Cucamonga in terms of population growth during the 1970s, growing by 96% compared to Rancho Cucamonga’s  215% during the decade.[66]

            Such extreme population growth was fostered by numerous skilled maneuvers by local officials during the 1960s. In 1965 alone the city made six annexations adding 216 acres to the city’s territory. Moreover, the city also completed a key annexation in 1967 which added over 250 acres to the city’s boundaries.[67] The city made dozens of annexations during the 1960s which provided room for the future agricultural, industrial and residential growth. By 1966, the city had grown by one-third since 1952 with over 51 annexations.[68] During the 1960s, city officials were also busy widening streets and rezoning areas of the city. The city aimed for by the late 1960s to have all its major roadways to be improved and repaved. One of the most key projects was the widening of the intersection at Central and Riverside. Today this intersection is the busiest and most widely traveled in the entire city. Re-zoning occurred throughout the city where residential development was focused in the west, commercial in the center, and agricultural in the east. Although adamantly opposed in many cases, many of the city’s western residents had to deal with their new zoning designation of RE and not A-1. A-1 permitted large farm animals such as hogs, cows, and goats to be present while RE merely permitted small animals such as dogs, cats and chickens.

            Such radical change initiated by the city’s officials was opposed for a variety of reasons. Many Chinoans believed that commercial and residential development would rob them of the very reason they moved into the city. For example, W.W Conway a resident, fought against industrialization in the city and stated that “Most of us moved out here because we wanted hogs, cows, horses and a half acre of land.”[69] Ken Carpenter also similarly feels “Having animals was an opportunity to teach children the facts of life in a clean way.”[70] Other Chino residents objected to losing the small town atmosphere which they cherished. “I’d rather us stay a small town. With all the industry and homes, it’s driving the dairies away and I’d like to see them stay,” says Mrs. Mary Leuck.[71] Mrs. Patricia Pfau echoed Leuck’s sentiments when she remarked “Well, I realize that growth is important to our area but I agree with others that it was nice when it was open and not quite so suburban..” [72] Whether the residents of Chino wanted it or not suburbia was here to stay, but unlike most regions of Southern California it wouldn’t mean the end of agricultural industry.

            Carl Palm notes in The Great California Story that bulldozers played a huge role in the region, “ they scooped out apricot orchards in the Hemet Valley, spinach and onion patches in the Santa Maria plain, lima bean fields in Oxnard, and olive groves in the San Fernando valley … all to make way for what would be an avalanche of new residential and commercial construction.”[73] Clearly, however, this was not the case in Chino. The community in Chino cherished agriculture and viewed the dairies as an asset to the atmosphere of the blossoming suburb. Moreover, zoning and rezoning had located the majority of the dairies to the eastern portion of the city, several miles away from residential areas keeping flies and smell from being too much of a problem. Thus agriculture continued to flourish in Chino well into the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

            Chino dairymen were also aided by an onslaught of inventions which greatly improved their production. A smaller parlor type barn and drylot operation became popular, gone was the roaming pastures which would extend for miles.[74] Feed was purchased and feeding, transporting, and milking all became automated.[75] In the 1970s the herringbone barn was a favorite in new construction and modifications.[76] This structure enabled washing, handling, and waste disposal to also become automated processes.

            The result of a flushing of technology into the dairying industry would have drastic effects upon the dairying industry within the city. By 1960, milk production was already a 42 million dollar a year producer in the city.[77] Every year thereafter profits steadily increased by millions and millions of dollars. In 1961, milk production brought in 45 million dollars, three million dollars more than it had brought in the previous year. [78] In 1961, Chino had made up thirty-seven and a half percent of the San Bernardino County agriculture revenue, producing more agriculture than anywhere else in the region.[79] The number of dairies also greatly increased in the early 1960s with 172 dairies in 1960 with a few more slightly over the Riverside County line. Clearly, 172 was 14 more dairies in the region than had existed in 1959.By the late 1960s, other agricultural pursuits such as potatoes, nursery crops and alfalfa were beginning to bow out. It was simply too profitable for Chino’s farmers to engage in any other type of farming other than dairying. The region’s milk profits were increasing as more and more dairymen sold their property in Los Angeles County and moved into Chino and as more and more dairymen bowed out of other agricultural industries. 

            Increasing profit was indeed the norm for Chino dairying during the 1970s and early 1980s. Though more automatic, Dairying was still very difficult work requiring farmers often to work from 2 in the morning until 8 in the evening everyday of the year. Nonetheless by the mid 1970s dairying was over a hundred million dollar a year industry within the city of Chino.[80] By the mid 1970s, the city had the most dairies ever in its history with nearly 400 dairies and some 190,000 cows.[81] Production was also up, being a little over fifteen million cubic weight tons from 1972 onward.[82] The biggest production was yet to come in the early and mid 1980s.

                                    The Decline of the Dairy Industry in Chino

            The 1980s saw a drastic decrease in the number of dairies within the region. By 1981, there were only 284 dairies in Chino down from the 400 which had been in existence during the mid and late 1970’s.[83] The number of cows in the region also had drastically reduced from 190,000 to 163,000 but the average amount of cows per dairy had increased.[84] The decline of dairies in the region during this era can be linked to the high level of competition which existed in the market during this time period. The price of milk greatly increased along with profit margins. Highly productive farmers could drive less productive farmers right out of the market. Accordingly milk became a 300 million dollar a year industry within Chino during the early 1980s.[85] However, by the mid 1980s, Chino’s suburbia was quickly becoming a problem for Chino’s dairy industry. By the late 1980s, 1990s and 2000s a majority of the dairies would leave Chino due to rising land values along with commercial and residential development.

            Los Angeles in the late 80’s and beyond was prosperous but it’s extremely large population was beginning to affect the city’s image. Riots rocked the city in 1992 and street gangs spread like a malignant tumor throughout the city. Gang membership had reached an astounding 50,000 by 1988.[86] With such problems, it’s no wonder that 600,000 people moved out of Los Angeles between 1991 and 1994.[87] While violence and gangs developed into big problems within the city in the post- late 1980s period, nonetheless the city of Los Angeles took a number of measures to retain its status as a premier business center. The city finished a light rail system known as the Metrolink and completed necessary renovations to its international airport. The city also developed a downtown district dubbed as the “California Plaza.” Clearly Los Angeles of the post lat-1980s was a place of extremes. Los Angeles had the most diverse population and commercial industries in the world and it was home for some of the country’s wealthiest and poorest citizens. Such extremity, ultimately had drastic effects on the suburbs of Los Angeles as well.

            Chino has been a victim of sorts to the extremes present in Los Angeles. With some 600,000 citizens from 1991 to 1994 leaving Los Angeles proper, the question remains, where were these citizens to relocate? Obviously they couldn’t just leave their well paying jobs but at the same time these Los Angeles migrants wanted a home far from riots and blossoming gangs. Chino naturally became a place which attracted a great number of these former Los Angeles residents.

            With even more people and business moving in, on the other hand, Chino’s large dairy industry began to move out. It was no longer a priority for city officials to keep Chino an agricultural town, in fact as the city website now declares, “Where everything grows (the city’s motto) which originally referred to the city’s agricultural beginning now refers to the growth of family, business and a strong sense of community.”[88] A landmark decision was made in 1993 which sealed the fate of dairy owners in Chino’s agricultural dairy preserve. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors opted to open the 21 square mile Chino dairy preserve to industrial and residential development.[89]

Surprisingly enough the decision was widely applauded by dairy owners all over the Chino dairy land. Rising land costs combined with serious environmental issues greatly contributed to the dairy farmer’s reactions. Dairy farmer Gene Koopman who owns  a 52-acre dairy in the Chino preserve said, “ In the long term it’s not feasible to stay here. The environmental problems are so severe.”[90] The executive director of the dairy council, Bob Feenstra, similarly stated “The main issue for the dairy industry is the cost of production here. Who’s going to pay for the sewers, gutters, and curbs.”[91] These environmental problems directly came about due to rising industrial and residential development in areas which surround the Chino dairy preserve and greater cow densities on the dairies themselves.

            By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the automated Chino dairy model became an unquestioned success. Annual income from dairy production reached the 350 million dollar amount and automation permitted dairies in Chino to average 865 more cows than the national dairy farm average.[92] However, having the highest concentration of dairy cows in the world ultimately would have its drawbacks.[93] One of the issues was that since Chino had developed so rapidly, industrially and residentially, the surrounding farmland which formerly absorbed the manure for crops no longer existed. Naturally, waste began to accumulate in rather large quantities.

            The large quantity of idle cow manure, created a number of water quality and cost issues. Water quality experts identified that dairies greatly contributed to rising build up of salts and nitrates in groundwater and that rainstorms flooded tainted, manure filled water into the Santa Ana River which feeds an underground reservoir which Orange County residents depend on for drinking water.[94] This finding would lead the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to demand that almost 2 million tons of manure be removed from the preserve by December 31, 2001.[95] Experts analyzed the costs at almost 30 million dollars to Chino dairy farmers. Clearly, it truly was becoming not very profitable for Chino dairy farmers to conduct their business in the Inland Empire any longer.

            With the 1993 decision made by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, opportunity once again arouse for Chino to grow from a business and residential standpoint. Good dairy land immediately began to sell for nearly 55,000 dollars an acre after the 1993 decision.[96] Developers instantaneously jumped at the chance to develop lands which formerly belonged to the Chino dairy preserve. The Dartmouth Development Group, based out of San Diego, opened escrow on a property 200 acres south of Kimball Street and West of Euclid Avenue for an industrial park in 1999.[97] The Dartmouth Development Group was negotiating with the city even before all the proper annexation papers had been filed. Janet Coe, Chino’s economic development coordinator, was delighted by the Dartmouth Development Group’s interest and cited that Chino was also a viable and affordable location for Orange County businesses to relocate.[98]

            Industrial developers were not the only ones jumping at the chance to develop Chino’s dairy preserve. Today, housing developers are also quick to jump on the red-hot real estate market are also making their mark on Chino’s former dairy stronghold. The current real estate boom has soared land values in the Chino dairy preserve from the 55,000 dollars an acre value in 1993 to over 400,000 dollars an acre in 2004.[99] Currently Chino’s master planned community known appropriately enough as “The Preserve” hopes to build 9,700 homes in what was formerly the heart of Chino dairy land.[100] Upon its completion, “The Preserve” is projected to add about 31,000 more residents to the Chino landscape. “The Preserve” occupies about 5,400 acres of former dairy land and its designers promote the fact that the development will feature a variety of architectural styles and that no home will be more than 2 blocks from a park.[101]

            The 1990 census boasted that the city of Chino contained 60,000 residents, today with much of the former dairy land developed around Pine, Kimball, and Schaefer avenues the city has about 70,000 residents.[102] With the completion of “The Preserve”, the city should be above or around 100,000 residents. A mere 20 years prior, Chino’s citizens figured it to be unfathomable for the city to expand from its 40,000 residents. Now nearly tripling its population from 1980, Chino as a community and as a landscape has changed in a very dramatic fashion. Soon the notion of Chino as the agricultural suburb will be an absurd assertion at best.

            With suburbia prevailing in Chino’s former dairy land, dairy farmers have moved all over the country with the majority heading northwards into the San Joaquin Valley where the extensive crop farming benefits and utilizes the fertilizer generated by former Chino dairies.[103] The San Joaquin Valley has also given former Chino dairy farmers a chance to lower their costs by growing their own food, the availability of land is much more pronounced in the San Joaquin Valley permitting dairy farmers to have larger farms. Other farmers have found that going out of state is a better option for them. Popular out of state destinations have included the states of Michigan, Kansas, and Wisconsin. Chino dairymen moving out of state believe they can bring better management skills to other regions and allow those regions to have large and successful herds.[104]

            One of these farmers is Bob Weststeyn, who grew up on a dairy in Corona on the Chino border. Weststeyn would like to bring the Chino brand of high volume and large herd dairy to the state of Wisconsin. Remarkably, despite its rich dairy history, the Chino style of dairy operation is still considered revolutionary in Wisconsin.[105] Weststeyn plans to expand a dairy he purchased in Wisconsin from an 100 cow operation to a 600 plus cow operation and is eager to apply techniques which he learned in Chino on his new Wisconsin farm. [106]

            While the majority dairy farmers have migrated out of Chino, there still remains many prominent dairies in the Chino area despite encroaching business and homes, environmental problems, and rising land costs. As of last year, the Inland Empire still had nearly 200,000 dairy cows along with 209 dairies.[107] About 100,000 of these cows resided in the Chino valley region. While this number is expected to decrease by another 5 or 10 thousand by the end of 2005, nonetheless there is still a large quantity of cows in the city of Chino. [108] Essentially the dairies which remain are waiting for developers to come through and label their property as the next developmental project. Unlike the early 1990’s, in which dairy farmers took losses to leave the area for fear of future business cost , current remaining farmers stand to profit in the millions and millions of dollars once developers take a shine to piece of property. For the majority of the remaining dairy farmers in Chino, it is not a matter if they are going to sell their property, it is a matter of when the right bid comes in from the right enthusiastic retail, industrial and residential developers.

                                                            Conclusion

            Clearly, the history of Chino tells the story of a very different and unusual kind of suburb. In Chino, we don’t see the rejection and seemingly instantaneous removal of agriculture. Rather, agriculture in Chino is still a force in the city’s economy (while diminishing) in this current era. The Chino of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had all the marks of  modern suburbs. It has lots of cars, rapidly expanding housing development  and a large number of commuters who utilized highway 71 and the Pomona freeway to travel daily to their jobs in Orange County and Los Angeles. Unlike the traditional suburb, however, Chino also contained over 400 dairy farms and a 300 million dollar a year milk producing operation. Chino was most certainly going under an identity crisis of sorts during this 30 year era but this unique identity crisis also shatters our traditional sense of what a suburb is and a suburb is not. Suburb doesn’t necessarily mean a shift away from agricultural industries as Mark Baldasarre has suggested, rather the term suburb should be utilized more broadly as clearly agricultural industry can be apart of this image as we can clearly identify when we examine the history of the city of Chino.

            It seems that Chino was bound to develop into an agricultural suburb from the dawn of it’s inception in the 19th century. Chino was easily accessible by train and its founder, Richard Gird, was adamant that sugar producing industries using locally grown sugar beets be established. Chino was also very close to Los Angeles, a blossoming metropolis which needed agriculture to feed its booming urban population. Furthermore, Chino was fortunate to receive a hardy batch of both Mexican and European immigrants who saw Chino’s emerging agricultural industry as a chance for success and a better livelihood.

            In the 1950s with the massive migration of Americans into Southern California, Los Angeles and it’s greater area grew like never before imagined. Land values increased in areas such as Anaheim and Artesia forcing dairy farmers further out east and into the Chino area. Since Chino had a great agricultural reputation and cheap available land, Orange County dairy farmers found the region to be quite suitable for their needs. Soon recent Chino migrants would adopt the clean and sanitary methods championed by Adolph Whitney and other Chino agricultural leaders and production would skyrocket within the city.

            The 1960s, 1970s and 1980s proved to be a golden age for Chino agriculturally, industrially and for residential expansion. The city renovated streets and re-zoned to give the city a clear residential and agricultural district. Moreover, dairy farmers adopted machines which made the dairying process virtually automatic and began to buy feed so that they could support dairy herds which could reach into the thousands. The city also aggressively sought business and was even advertised nationally by the Edison Company in the Wall Street Journal. With emerging business, affordable housing and effective planning it was no wonder that the city had increased its population to 40,000 residents by 1980.

            The 1990s and 2000s proved to signal the downfall of the golden age of agriculture within the city of Chino. Mounting environmental concerns combined with rising land values and zealous land developers proved to motivate Chino dairy farmers to move northwards into the San Joaquin Valley or out of State. The Chino of the 1990s and 2000s is one which emphasizes business and families. With the completion of housing projects such as “The Preserve”, it is doubtful that many if any dairies will remain in Chino for the next twenty years. The Chino of today is quickly adopting an identity which it is seeking to appeal to both Orange County business and residents as a viable relocation destination as prices continue to skyrocket uncontrollably within Orange County and with new undeveloped space in the Chino dairy land.

The impact of Chino as the agricultural suburb is in fact greater than it may appear. Chino’s dairymen have adapted and survived for more than 40 years alongside with a blossoming suburb of Los Angeles. Their technological improvements have allowed them to survive and prosper economically in a highly limited space which was the Chino dairy preserve of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Now with the suburb finally conquering the Chino dairy land here in the 2000s, Chino dairy farmers seem set to expand their technology and knowledge to other parts of the country. Undoubtedly if these  farmers have been able to thrive in such a small, compact space then surely in other areas where there is more space and lower costs these farmers should be able at the very least to  replicate their successes in Chino. Surely, if dairy technology and methods improve as a whole throughout this country due to the experience and knowledge utilized and shared by Chino dairy farmers then dairying in this country is bound to boom. If the dairy industry evolves in the United States like it did in Chino, then clearly the future of the agricultural economy is bound to benefit thanks to the innovation and ingenuity of the Chino dairy farmers who made an agricultural suburb possible. It is clear that Chino does not fit the traditional suburbia model or image created by historians and sociologists, further studies of Chino and communities like it undoubtedly will aide historians and other scholars into better understanding the concepts of urban and suburbia and how these concepts have affected American society in the past, present and future. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Bibliography

 

Primary Sources

 

 

 Agricultural Revenue Increases 15.5%.” Chino Champion, 21 March 1975,1.

 

Brass Manufacturing Firm To Locate Here.” Chino Champion, 29 June 1961,1.

 

Brown, Melinda. “Chino in the Horse and Buggy Days.” Chino Rotary Club. (Chino, CA: Chino Rotary Club, 2005).

 

“Business Increase.” Chino Champion: Annual Progress Edition, 26 January 1966, 5.

 

Chino 8th in Building.”  Chino Champion, 2 July 1975,1.

 

Chino Building Tops 825 Million In 1974.” Chino Champion, 10 January 1975. 1.

 

Chino Fastest Growing City in Southern California.” Chino Champion, 31 January

1975, 1.

 

 Chino Students Take Part in Spanish Plays at Chaffey.” Chino Champion, 20 May

1938, 4.

 

“CIM Cow Tops DHIA 305 Day Production.” Chino Champion, 17 February 1955, 1.

 

“City Lists Accomplishments Of 1965.”  Chino Champion, 5 January 1966, A-1.

 

City of Chino.  “About Chino.” www.cityofchino.org (accessed 22 May

2005).

 

“Critical Mass: Chino Valley Dairies Are Exporting Innovation and Efficiency to the Rest of the Nation’s Milk-producing Regions.”  The Press-Enterprise, 2 August 1998, H01. 

 

“Dairy Changes Hands.” Chino Champion, 3 March 1916, 1.

 

“Dairy Farming Shrinks Three.” Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 11 April 2005. Available

From: http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203%257E21482%257E281138

3,00.html?search=filter#

 

“Dairy Foods Date Back 15,000 Years.” Chino Champion, 16 June 1955, 6.

 

“Dairy Held Prizes for Production Won by Chinoans.” Chino Champion, 28 January

1938,1.

 

Developer Churning Deal for Chino Dairy Preserve.” The Business Press, 8 March

1999, 2.

 

“Economic Survey Shows City, County Growing Rapidly.” Chino Champion,  21 April

1955, 1.

 

“Edison Company Promotes Chino In National Ad.”  Chino Champion: Annual Progress

Edition, 26 January 1966, 3.

 

Ellington, Doug. Interview by author. Chino, California, 20 May 2004.

“Ethnic Distribution.”  Chino Champion, 27 February1981. 22

“Fewer Dairies but More Cows in Chino Milkshed.” Chino Champion, 27 February 1981,

18.

 

“From Cow Town to New Town: Chino’s Dairies Yield to Homes and New Development

Style.” The Press-Enterprise, 14 November 2004, G01.

 

“From Milk Stools to Herringbones: History of Chino Dairy.” Chino Champion, 3 June

1977, 8.

 

“Gay Costumes Worn in Comedy.” Chino Champion, 21 April 1955, 1.

 

“Good News.” Los Angeles Times, 1 January 1950, E4.

 

“Gross Agricultural Receipts Hit $26 Million Dollar Amount in 54’.” Chino Champion,

20 January 1955, 1.

 

“Growth in an Age of Freeways.” Los Angeles Times,  19 October 1955, A5

 

“Highlights of 1961.” Chino Champion, 4 January 1962, 1.

 

“Illegal Aliens: No Quick Solution Seen.” Los Angeles Times, 10 December 1975, C8.

 

“Largest Annexation Awaiting Vote; City Has Increased Size One-Third.”  Chino

Champion: Annual Home and Progress Edition, 2 July 1975, 1.

 

“Mexican Gambler Jailed.” Chino Champion,  7 July1916, 1.

 

“Mexican Goes Insane.” Chino Champion, 2 April 1916, 1.

 

“Moving the Manure Chino Basin Dairy Farmers Face A New Problem……Finding A

Better Way To Get Rid of the Cow Dung Piling Up On  Their Property.” The

Press-Enterprise, 15 August 1999, H01.

 

“Part of Chino Dairy Land To Be Developed.”  The Press-Enterprise, 23 June 1993, Bus

 

“Residential Estate Rezoning Meets Solid Opposition.” Chino Champion, 31 August

1961, 1.

 

“Review of the Year 1980 In Chino.” Chino Champion, 2 January 1981. 5

 

“Soaring Sixties.” Los Angeles Times, 7 February 1960, G1.

 

“Talk Around Town- How Do You Feel About Chino’s Growth.”Chino Champion, 7

February 1975, 3.

 

Ultra-Modern Meat Packing Plant Opens Here Next Week.” Chino Champion,10 August

1961,1.

 

 

“Valley Pays Tribute to Thriving Local Dairies.” Chino Champion, 16 June 1955, 1

 

“Variance Sought for Dairy, Corner Riverside, Norton.” Chino Champion, 19 May 1955,

1.

 

“We Didn’t Quite Make 2,000,000.” Los Angeles Times, 16 June 1950, A4.

 

Secondary Sources

 

Baldasaare, Mark. “Suburban Communities” Annual Review of Sociology

18 no.1, (1995): 475-494.

 

Bohme, Frederick.“The Portuguese in CaliforniaCalifornia Historical

Society Quarterly 35, no.3 (1956): 233-252.

 

Cammarota, Ann Marie. Pavements in the Garden. Madison, Wis: Rosemont Publishing,

2001.

 

Dupuis, Melanie. Nature’s Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink. New

York: New York University Press, 2002.

 

Ebner, Michael. “Re-reading Suburban America: Urban Population Deconcentration,

1810-1980” American Quarterly 37 no.3 (1985):, 368-381.

 

Eicher, Joanne and Richard Kurtz. “Fringe and Suburb: A Confusion of Concepts” Social

Forces 37 no.1 (1958):, 32-37.

 

 

Gilbert, Jess and Wehr, Kevin. “Dairy Industrialization in the First Place: Urbanization,

Immigration, and Political Economy in Los Angeles County, 1920-1970” Rural

Sociology 68 no. 4 (2003) : 467-490.

 

Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green fields and urban growth, 1820-2000. New

York : Pantheon Books, 2003.

 

Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: 150 years of suburbanization in the United

States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

 

Machor, James. Pastoral cities: urban ideals and the symbolic landscape of America.

Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

   

Muller, Peter. Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

1981.

 

Palen, J. John. The Suburbs. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1995.

 

Palm, Carl The Great California Story. New York: Northcross Books, 2004.

 

Patel, Dinker I. Exurbs: Urban Residential Developments In The Countryside.

Washington D.C.: University Press of America, 1980.

 

Roberts, Gerrylyn. American Cities & Technology: wilderness to wired cit. London:

Routledge, 1999.

 

Santos, Robert L. “Azoreans to California.” Californians 13, no. 1 (1996): 30-48.

 

Selitzer, Ralph. The Dairy Industry in America. New York: Dairy and Ice Cream Field,

1976.

 

Teaford, John. The Twentieth-century American City. Baltimore: John Hopkins

University Press, 1993.



[1]Doug Ellington, interview by author, 20 May 2004, Chino,CA.

[2]( City of Chino, “About Chino),” www.cityofchino.org, n.d.,as accessed on May 20, 2005.

[3]Kenneth T. Jackson, The Crabgrass Frontier: 150 Years of Suburban Growth in America, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 265.

[4]Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 139.

[5]Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 139.

[6]Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 138.

[7]Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 286.

[8]Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 176.

[9]Michael Ebner, “Re-reading Suburban America: Urban Population Deconcentration, 1810- 1980,” American Quarterly, 22, no. 2 (1985):368. 

[10]Ebner, “Re-reading Suburban America,”380.

[11]Carl Palm, The Great California Story( New York: Northcross Books, 2004),20.

[12]Palm, The Great California Story, 20.

[13]Joanne Eicher and Richard Kurtz,“Fringe and Suburb: a confusion of concepts,” Social Forces, 37 no. 1 (1958):36.

[14]Mark Baldasarre,“Suburban Communities,” Annual Review of Sociology 18 (1995): 475.

[15]Baldasarre,“Suburban Communities,” 476.

[16]Baldassare,“Suburban Communities,” 477.

[17]Palm, The Great California Story, 13.

[18]Palm, The Great California Story, 18.

[19]Palm, The Great California Story, 18

[20]Melinda Brown,“Chino in the Horse and Buggy Days,” Chino Rotary Club (Chino, CA: Chino Rotary Club, 2005). 

[21]Brown,“Chino in the Horse and Buggy Days.”

[22]“Dairy Changes Hands,” Chino Champion, March 3, 1916, 1.

[23]“Mexican Gambler Jailed,” Chino Champion, July 7, 1916, 1.

[24]“Mexican Goes Insane,” Chino Champion, April 2, 1916, 1.

[25]“From Milk Stools To Herringbones: History of Chino Dairy,” Chino Champion, June 3, 1977, 8.

[26]“Dairy Held Prizes for Production Won by Chinoans,” Chino Champion, January 28, 1938, 1.

[27]Chino Students Take Part in Spanish Plays at Chaffey,” Chino Champion, May 20, 1938, 4.

 

 

[28]Palm, The Great California Story, 199.

[29]Palm, The Great California Story, 200.

[30]Palm, The Great California Story, 200.

[31]“Good News,”Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1950, E4.

[32]Palm, The Great California Story, 203.

[33]Palm, The Great California Story, 196.

[34]“We Didn’t Quite Make 2,000,000,” Los Angeles Times, June 16,1950, A4.

[35]“Growth in an Age of Freeways,” Los Angeles Times,  October 19, 1955, A5.

[36]“Valley Pays Tribute to Thriving Local Dairies,” Chino Champion, June 16, 1955, 1.

[37]“Valley Pays Tribute to Thriving Local Dairies,”1.

[38]“Variance Sought for Dairy, Corner Riverside, Norton,” Chino Champion, May 19, 1955, 1.

[39]“Gross Agricultural Receipts Hit $26 Million Dollar Amount in 54’,”Chino Champion, January 20, 1955, 1.

[40]“CIM Cow Tops DHIA 305 Day Production,” Chino Champion, February 17, 1955, 1.

[41]“Economic Survey Shows City, County Growing Rapidly,” Chino Champion, April 21, 1955, 1.

[42]“Gay Costumes Worn in Comedy,”Chino Champion, April 21,1955, 1.

[43]“Dairy Foods Date Back 15,000 Years,”Chino Champion, June 16, 1955, 6.

[44]Palm, The Great California Story, 21.

[45]“Soaring Sixties,” Los Angeles Times, February 7, 1960, G1.

[46]Palm, The Great California Story, 20.

[47]Palm, The Great California Story, 22.

[48]“Illegal Aliens: No Quick Solution Seen,” Los Angeles Times, December 10, 1975, C8.

[49]Palm, The Great California Story, 23.

[50]Palm, The Great California Story, 23.

[51]Palm,    The Great California Story, 206.

[52]Palm, The Great California Story, 207.

[53]Palm, The Great California Story, 207.

[54]Palm, The Great California Story, 209.

[55]“Agricultural Revenue Increases 15.5%,” Chino Champion, March 21, 1975,1.

[56]“Brass Manufacturing Firm To Locate Here,” Chino Champion, June 29,1961, 1.

[57]“Ultra-Modern Meat Packing Plant Opens Here Next Week,” Chino Champion, August 10, 1961,1.

[58]“City Lists Accomplishments Of 1965,” Chino Champion, January 5, 1966, A-1.

[59]“Edison Company Promotes Chino In National Ad,” Chino Champion:Annual Progress Edition, January 26,1966, 3.

[60]“Business Increase,” Chino Champion: Annual Progress Edition, January 26, 1966, 5.

[61]Chino Fastest Growing City In Southern California,” Chino Champion, January 31, 1975, 1.

[62]Chino Building Tops 825 Million In 1974,” Chino Champion, January 10, 1975. 1

[63]Chino Building Tops 825 Million In 1974,”1

[64]Chino 8th in Building,” Chino Champion, July 2, 1975, 1.

[65]“Review Of the Year 1980 in Chino,” Chino Champion, January 2, 1981, 5.

[66]“Ethnic Distribution,” Chino Champion, February 27, 198,. 22.

[67]“City Lists Accomplishments of 1965,” Chino Champion, January 5, 1966, A-1.

[68]“Largest Annexation Awaiting Vote; City Has Increased Size One-Third,”Chino Champion: Annual Home and Progress Edition, July 2, 1975,  1.

[69]“Residential Estate Rezoning Meets Solid Opposition,” Chino Champion, August 31, 1961, 1.

[70]“Residential Estate Rezoning Meets Solid Opposition,”1.

[71]“Talk Around Town- How Do You Feel About Chino’s Growth,” Chino Champion, February 7, 1975, 3.

[72]“Talk Around Town- How Do You Feel About Chino’s Growth,”3.

[73] Palm, The Great California Story, 20.

[74]“From Milk Stools To Herringbones,”Chino Champion 8.

[75]“From Milk Stools To Herringbones,”Chino Champion,8.

[76]“From Milk Stools To Herringbone,”Chino Champion,8.

[77]“Highlights of 1961,” Chino Champion, January 4,1962,1.

[78]“Highlights of 1961,”1.

[79]“Highlights of 1961,”1.

[80]“From Milk Stools to Herringbones,”8.

[81]“From Milk Stools to Herringbones,”8.

[82]“Agricultural Revenue Increases 15.5%,” Chino Champion, March 21, 1975,1 

[83]“Fewer Dairies but More Cows in Chino Milkshed,” Chino Champion, February 27,1981,18.

[84]“Fewer Dairies but More Cows in Chino Milkshed,”18.

[85]“Fewer Dairies but More Cows in Chino Milkshed,”18.

[86]Palm, The Great California Story, 212.

[87]Palm, The Great California Story, 212.

[88](City ofChino, “About Chino.)”

[89]“Part of Chino Dairy Land to Be Developed,”  The Press-Enterprise, June 23, 1993, Business. 

[90]“Part of Chino Dairy Land to Be Developed.”

[91]“Part of Chino Dairy Land to Be Developed.”

[92]“Critical Mass: Chino Valley Dairies Are Exporting Innovation and Efficiency to the Rest of the Nation’s Milk-producing Regions,” The Press-Enterprise, August 2, 1998, H01. 

[93]“Critical Mass,”H01.

[94]“Moving the Manure Chino Basin Dairy Farmers Face a New Problem……Finding A Better Way To Get Rid of the Cow Dung Piling Up on  Their Property,” The Press-Enterprise, August 15,1999, H01.

[95]“Moving the Manure,”H01.

[96]“Part of Chino Dairy Land To Be Developed.”

[97]“Developer Churning Deal for Chino Dairy Preserve,” The Business Press, March 8, 1999, 2.

[98]“Developer Churning Deal for Chino Dairy Preserve,”2.

[99]“From Cow Town to New Town: Chino’s Dairies Yield to Homes and New Development Style,” The Press-Enterprise, November 14, 2004, G01.

[100]“From Cow Town to New Town,”G01.

[101] “From Cow Town to New Town,”G01.

[102](City ofChino, “About Chino.)”

[103] “Moving the Manure,”H01.

[104]“Critical Mass,”H01.

[105]“Critical Mass,”H01.

[106]“Critical Mass,”H01.

[107]“Dairy Farming Shrinks Three,” Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,  April 11,2005, available from http://www.dailybulletin.com

[108]“Dairy Farming Shrinks Three.”