In a fresh blow to Governor Gavin Newsom, new data has revealed that six of the worst US cities to retire in are located in California.
WalletHub ranked the best and worst cities to retire based on a combination of affordability, activities, quality of life and health.
The study uncovered that while the top retirement destinations are spread across different states, most of the least desirable cities for retirees are found in California.
Among the 182 cities assessed, San Bernardino in California finished at the bottom with an overall score of 35.23, contrasting starkly with Orlando, Florida, the highest-ranked city, which scored 62.63.
Situated in the Inland Empire area of Southern California, San Bernardino has a population of 222,101, making it the 18th largest city in the state.
The city hosts a vibrant college atmosphere in its University District, home to students from California State University, San Bernardino, but reportedly offers little appeal for retirees.
In the survey, San Bernardino ranked poorly in all categories among the 182 cities: Health Care (174), Quality of Life (171), Activities (157), and Affordability (128).
These dismal results come amid a period of intense criticism for Newsom concerning his management of immigration protests and his perceived ‘anti-business’ policies.
In a fresh blow to Governor Gavin Newsom (pictured), new data has revealed that six of the worst places to retire are located in California
Out of 182 cities, California’s San Bernardino ranked the lowest of all as a place for retirees to settle
The second worst city to retire in was Stockton – also in California, which scored 35.35.
Stockton, a city on the San Joaquin River in California’s Central Valley, has a population of 324,975 and, while it hosts an array of museums, zoos and higher educational institutions, there is not much to offer older generations.
The city saw low rankings across the board: Health Care (157), Quality of Life (123), Activities (181) and Affordability (133).
Next in line was another California city, Rancho Cucamonga – which scored 36.53.
Located just south of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles National Forest in San Bernardino County, Rancho Cucamonga has a population of 176,675.
While Rancho Cucamonga is known to boast beautiful parks and outdoor recreation, creating a fairly good quality of life for retirees, data shows that the city failed to offer other important qualities.
Rancho Cucamonga saw low rankings in all but one category: Health Care (128), Quality of Life (90), Activities (176) and Affordability (163).
Yet another California city was ranked the fourth worst spot for retirees to settle down: Bakersfield, with a score of 37.11.
The second worst city to retire in was Stockton (pictured) – also in California
California’s Rancho Cucamonga was ranked among the worst cities to retire in
Bakersfield (pictured) – another California city ranked poorly as a place to retire – is in Kern County and has a population of 403,455
Bakersfield is known as the ‘oil capital’ of California (pictured: a refinery in Bakersfield)
Bakersfield is in Kern County and has a population of 403,455. It is a significant hub for both agriculture and energy production, and is known as the ‘oil capital’ of California.
But the city is also known for its intense sweltering summer heat – with daily averages of 91°F lasting for around three months.
Bakersfield ranked relatively poorly in all categories: Health Care (169), Quality of Life (125), Activities (173) and Affordability (113).
The fifth worst city is not in California, it is Newark, New Jersey – which scored 37.29.
Perhaps best known to house Newark Liberty International Airport, Newark is New Jersey’s most populous city – with 317,303 residents.
Newark ranked at the bottom end of three out of the four categories: Health Care (134), Quality of Life (169), Activities (81) and Affordability (156).
Next in the rankings was Fresno, California, with a cumulative score of 38.33.
Located in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Fresno has a population of 550,105 and is known for being the ‘Raisin Capital of the World’, and a major agricultural hub for crops like almonds and cotton. However, the city does not have much to offer retirees.
The fifth worst city is not in California, it is Newark, New Jersey – which is perhaps best known for its airport (pictured)
California’s Fresno (pictured) is another of the worst US cities to retire in
Fresno has a population of 550,105 and is known for being the ‘Raisin Capital of the World’
Fresno saw low rankings across the board: Health Care (144), Quality of Life (144), Activities (175) and Affordability (125).
The seventh worst city to retire in was Fontana, California – which scored 38.42 overall.
Fontana, which is located in San Bernardino County, is a regional hub of the trucking industry, with several major interstate highways passing through the city.
With a population of over 213,000 and a median age of 33.3, Fontana is apparently not best suited for retirees.
Fontana was low in the rankings for each category: Health Care (147), Quality of Life (99), Activities (172) and Affordability (139).
Amongst the cities ranked to be the best for retirement were Orlando, Florida; Scottsdale, Arizona; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Miami, Florida; Tampa, Florida and Atlanta, Georgia.
The California city that ranked the highest for retirees was San Francisco – which was rated fairly well for its health care, activities and quality of life.
However, the notoriously expensive city fell near the bottom in affordability rankings.
California’s abysmal performance in recent data is just the latest embarrassment for Governor Newsom.
Newsom faced backlash for his behavior during California’s devastating wildfires earlier this year, with many people suggesting he was using the natural disaster as a PR stunt to further his political career.
California’s governor has also spent the last few months relentlessly trolling President Donald Trump online.
The Daily Mail has reached out to Newsom’s office for comment.
