[BigHouse9]

Originally Posted by Erin1264

I'm glad to see some CT towns on there...

As for the selection method - who knows! The #4 city last year (Cary, NC) is nowhere on the list this year! That is strange to me, to be very high on the list one year and completely drop off the next.

I think Fort Collins, CO was number #1 last year and is not on the list either. Ironically, Apex, NC and Holly Springs, NC made the list and those are 2 towns directly South of Cary. Cary has had some negative publicity during the past year for it's forced annexation policies. It's pattern of growth has not been handled well either.

All the CT towns that are well kept secrets would do well to wish that they are not on these lists either. Sprawl explosions from lists like these. We all know CT has so much to offer and provide so towns don't need to be on any lists.

[CTlibrarian]

The article does not give all their data criteria, but the editor explains how they focused on "smaller" towns this year, which would explain the difference from last year:

I'm glad to report that this year's Best Places to Live focuses again on smaller communities. In fact, new data have allowed executive editor Craig Matters, special projects editor Jennifer Merritt and their team to rope in hundreds of smaller towns (some with populations as low as 7,500) that were once excluded for lack of distinct information. ..None of the nearly 2,900 places in our database made the cut if they didn't offer good jobs, affordable housing, solid schools, safe streets, ethnic diversity and a host of other quantifiable virtues. But once we narrowed the field to places that looked great on paper, we made our final decision by judging, in person, intangibles such as a town's beauty and the residents' community involvement. If those sound like something out of Norman Rockwell, so be it. We wanted to hear, as an interviewee told Merritt, "I love this place. I can't think of a single thing not to like about it." And that town came in second.
The Best Little Places to Live.(Editor's Note). Eric Schurenberg.
Money 36.8 (August 2007): p18. [/color]

[WallStreetWarrior]

I would also have to say that these lists, year after year, seem incredibly "random". I think what happens is that a mathematical equation is made, and each town is plugged in, end of story. As in, there's no in depth research occuring here. I could be wrong, but that's just the way I know a lot of these cumulative criteria "ranking systems" work.

What I'm sure of is that the list competitors changed from 2005 to 2006, and then again from 2006 to 2007. I remember 2005 as being the first year I came upon these rankings and population was not capped or undercut at all. In 2006, they made the switch to cities with larger populations; I think it was 50k plus. It appears for 2007 they went to allowing smaller towns to the rankings.

Reverting to my original point, it just seems as if the way the places are chosen is simply too statistical. Looking at 2005, which included a great variety of locations, I noticed that Tolland was 29. From living in Tolland, I can back this by saying sure, it's a great place to live. And realistically, it is; including low crime, good schools, relatively nearby amenities and work opportunity, etc. Then look a little more down the list to Scottsdale, AZ, which stuck out for me. Over a quarter million pop., generally high crime, a much high ratio of homeprice:income, etc. For starters, I don't even know a way to compare the two, which to me, makes this ranking list a bit arbitrary.

For this reason, I like the way it was broken down in the 2006 and 2007 editions. Yet still, the lists have that sense of oddity to them. Fairfield made the list at 9, which I thought was strange. Stamford made the list at 46; I thought this was crazy. Why?, you may ask. Simply because there are cities that are, by my personal conclusions, much better than Stamford. Greenwhich and West Hartford, I would say, are much better places than Stamford. I would probably even chose Manchester, Danbury or Bristol before Stamford.

To finalize, I really only have one more rhetorical question. Why Rocky Hill??!?

[WallStreetWarrior]

Oh yeah, by the way, I'm beginning to belive there are countless errors on these lists.

Example here; in 2006, Houston was ranked the #2 Skinniest city.... Come again? Hmmm...the same year, USA Today had it ranked as the 5th "Fattest". I'm confused.

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by WallStreetWarrior

I would also have to say that these lists, year after year, seem incredibly "random". I think what happens is that a mathematical equation is made, and each town is plugged in, end of story. As in, there's no in depth research occuring here. I could be wrong, but that's just the way I know a lot of these cumulative criteria "ranking systems" work.

What I'm sure of is that the list competitors changed from 2005 to 2006, and then again from 2006 to 2007. I remember 2005 as being the first year I came upon these rankings and population was not capped or undercut at all. In 2006, they made the switch to cities with larger populations; I think it was 50k plus. It appears for 2007 they went to allowing smaller towns to the rankings.

Reverting to my original point, it just seems as if the way the places are chosen is simply too statistical. Looking at 2005, which included a great variety of locations, I noticed that Tolland was 29. From living in Tolland, I can back this by saying sure, it's a great place to live. And realistically, it is; including low crime, good schools, relatively nearby amenities and work opportunity, etc. Then look a little more down the list to Scottsdale, AZ, which stuck out for me. Over a quarter million pop., generally high crime, a much high ratio of homeprice:income, etc. For starters, I don't even know a way to compare the two, which to me, makes this ranking list a bit arbitrary.

For this reason, I like the way it was broken down in the 2006 and 2007 editions. Yet still, the lists have that sense of oddity to them. Fairfield made the list at 9, which I thought was strange. Stamford made the list at 46; I thought this was crazy. Why?, you may ask. Simply because there are cities that are, by my personal conclusions, much better than Stamford. Greenwhich and West Hartford, I would say, are much better places than Stamford. I would probably even chose Manchester, Danbury or Bristol before Stamford.

To finalize, I really only have one more rhetorical question. Why Rocky Hill??!?

Why Rocky Hill you ask?
The writers of the Money magazine article use criteria that defies explanation. Rocky Hill and Somers are gems- lets hope they stay that way-

[dnbnv]

Out of ALL the places in the nation to live, how does CNN Money pick a top 100. Is it a random vote? Do the cities or towns have to submit an application for consideration? I know that my home town of Cincinnati Ohio has been on many best places lists, and although it is a nice place with much to do, there are so many factors that I think would keep it from getting on the list. These lists are very interesting and a while ago I was using them to determine which area I would want to move to, but have since decided to select my own set of criteria and rank my own best places!!

[clamboy]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

From CNN Money top towns to live.

Business, financial, personal finance news - CNNMoney


Connecticut towns rated

Rocky Hill # 35
Somers #53
Trumbull #68
North Haven #86

Thats awesome

I think were sold on Somers.

What did MONEY say?

C

[clamboy]

Got it
53. Somers, Conn.
Population: 12,000
Median home price (2006): $319,457
Average property taxes (2006): $4,018

A suburb of Hartford, Somers has the feel of a quiet New England town. And like a lot of places in New England, it works hard to promote a strong sense of community. The Cultural Commission hosts everything from art shows to tea parties to an annual concert series, while the recreation departments runs a teen center and skate park for its younger residents. Somers is currently looking into revitalizing its downtown, as well. -B.N.

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by clamboy

Got it
53. Somers, Conn.
Population: 12,000
Median home price (2006): $319,457
Average property taxes (2006): $4,018

A suburb of Hartford, Somers has the feel of a quiet New England town. And like a lot of places in New England, it works hard to promote a strong sense of community. The Cultural Commission hosts everything from art shows to tea parties to an annual concert series, while the recreation departments runs a teen center and skate park for its younger residents. Somers is currently looking into revitalizing its downtown, as well. -B.N.

Yes Clamboy

Somers is very nice- also while in Tolland county look at Bolton, Ellington, Coventry, Tolland, Stafford Springs and Willington. I am sure you will find all these towns quiet, low key, having little traffic and price wise for a housing; a secret bargain

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by WallStreetWarrior

Fairfield made the list at 9, which I thought was strange. Stamford made the list at 46; I thought this was crazy.

I did not understand your reasoning for thinking that is was strange and crazy to have Fairfield and Stamford so high on this. Both are really great places. Stamford is a larger city and has so much going for it. It is a very desirable place to live otherwise so many people and companies wouldn't want to be there. It is very convenient to Manhatten and is surrounded by some of the most desirable suburbs in the country. It has an excellent downtown with a lot of shopping, restaurant and entertainment options. Why do you think that it is "crazy" to list it at No.46?

As for Fairfield, it truly is a wonderful town. There is diverse housing oiptions (from rental to mansions) but no real slums or problem areas. It has excellent schools, great parks and beaches and very good shopping, restaurants and entertainment options. It is accessible to New York City and Stamford. It is historic (many beautiful old homes and public buildings) and scenic (Southport is stunning, as is Greenfield Hill and the beaches). What more would you or anyone want? Just so you know, back in the 70's Fairfield was named by Ladies Home Journal as one of the best New York area suburbs as well. It is a really great town with a lot to offer. Jay