NJ Monthly: Best Places To Live (Newark, Cranford: school, university, property taxes)

[syncmaster]

Right but did they weight the individual metrics prior to averaging them?

If not, the rankings are meaningless.

[kalim2008]

Originally Posted by syncmaster

Right but did they weight the individual metrics prior to averaging them?

If not, the rankings are meaningless.

Like I said, the researchers should have given more details on their methodology and why it gave out some rather interesting rankings.

[syncmaster]

Originally Posted by kalim2008

Like I said, the researchers should have given more details on their methodology and why it gave out some rather interesting rankings.

Agreed.

What is your opinion on weighting the 8 categories? If you were designing the study, would you have weighted them equally?

[billb7581]

All I know is, for the Burlington/Camden county area, they have Riverside ranked quite high, and about 20 places any reasonable person would want to live ranked below it

[syncmaster]

Originally Posted by billb7581

All I know is, for the Burlington/Camden county area, they have Riverside ranked quite high, and about 20 places any reasonable person would want to live ranked below it

That's not difficult to believe. If total crime rate is equally weighted with something like proximity to acute care hospitals, a low score in the former can be offset by a high score in the latter.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by kalim2008

Oh, I see, because in REALITY, there's more to life than the crime statistics. IN REALITY, you can't just shoe-horn an entire city and its 300,000 inhabitants into one big generalized shoe-horn

No. Because in "REALITY" I can move 10 miles away, to an area with no crime. There is no need to move to another country.

As I said, if Newark were a desirable place to live, they wouldn't be giving away penthouse apartments and mansions. The free market never lies.

[kalim2008]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

No. Because in "REALITY" I can move 10 miles away, to an area with no crime. There is no need to move to another country.

As I said, if Newark were a desirable place to live, they wouldn't be giving away penthouse apartments and mansions. The free market never lies.

That's not a valid argument.

If your children are really that important, AND crime is the ONLY important thing, then you would consider moving to a place based solely on crime statistics.

Take home for you: You can't generalize an entire large city into one opinion, just like you can't generalize the entire USA into one opinion on one factor. Comprende????

Like I said, there is more to anything than just ONE factor.

And btw, if the free market "never lies" then we wouldn't have messes like the dotcom bombs, the real estate bomb, etc. There are no absolutes dude, that's the only absolute.

[CuCullin]

Originally Posted by kalim2008

There are no absolutes dude, that's the only absolute.

Except the absolutely perfect NJ Monthly: Best Places to Live list. Its absolutely phenomenal. And I know this because Clark and Cranford ranked high.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by kalim2008

That's not a valid argument.

If your children are really that important, AND crime is the ONLY important thing, then you would consider moving to a place based solely on crime statistics.

Take home for you: You can't generalize an entire large city into one opinion, just like you can't generalize the entire USA into one opinion on one factor. Comprende????

Like I said, there is more to anything than just ONE factor.

And btw, if the free market "never lies" then we wouldn't have messes like the dotcom bombs, the real estate bomb, etc. There are no absolutes dude, that's the only absolute.

I cant argue with someone that changes my words, and is all over the map. Your lack of focus is making this impossible.

Crime is the MOST important factor in choosing a neighborhood, not the "ONLY" important factor. Schools are a close second...Newark loses yet again on that front. It is a lot easier to generalize about a small population than it is about a country, as you did with Watchung and Newark. Why would anyone CHOOSE to raise their children in a city that is consistently at the top of the list for violent crimes in America?

And yes, the free market never lies. Dotcom and real estate bubbles have nothing to do with anything. When dotcoms were worth $100 a share, they were worth $100 dollars a share. When they went down to $10 a share, they were worth $10 a share. Things are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. Since we are comparing two objects of value, we have to discuss them in relative terms. Whether or not real estate goes up or down, makes no difference as long as the ratios are the same. If the ratio changes, then that is when relative value changes. For instance, if crime suddenly stopped in Newark, and the schools magically got better, then the price of homes would go up, because more people would want to live there. If the opposite happened in Watchung, the the price would go down, because less people would want to live there. Things can be "undervalued" in your opinion, but if they never rise to meet their "value", were they really undervalued? The free market never lies (I will add) at a fixed point in time. And at THIS point in time, Watchung is a better place to live than Newark.

[billb7581]

Originally Posted by syncmaster

That's not difficult to believe. If total crime rate is equally weighted with something like proximity to acute care hospitals, a low score in the former can be offset by a high score in the latter.

Proximity to hospital is a pretty dopey criteria... I don't want to live in Camden just to be close to Cooper trauma center... I just increase my odds of having to visit