Ithaca, N.Y.; Huntsville, Ala.; Lubbock, Texas; Oklahoma City;Rochester, Minn.; and State College, Pa.)What’s not good: U.S. News doesn’t reveal its data, so you can’ttell whether the magazine’s criteria would match yours. Somelists are anecdotal and random: Best Retirement Places forFoodies, for instance, came by asking “a handful of chefs andculinary experts” for recommendations and surprisingly includesMcMinnville, Ore. A few choices seem way off: Clearwater, Fla., isa great place for “winter sports nuts?”Best for: Choosing a place based on one factor that matters a lotto you.MoneyWatch.com rating: ★★★MoneyHow it rates places: Money created its three lists by selectingdiscrete criteria — towns near water, affordable homes, and longlife expectancy — and layering on additional data.What’s good: The 6 Terrific Towns on the Water list factors inlivability factors such as crime, weather, and activities. (Winners:Dunedin, Fla.; Sequim, Wash.; St. Joseph, Mich.; Beaufort, S.C.;Durango, Colo.; and Marble Falls, Texas.) The Affordable Homeswinners have Google Maps showing homes for sale and the pricesof recent sales. Winners on all three lists have data displaysshowing how they fare on key measures such as weather,property taxes, crime, movie theaters, and libraries, as well ashow the areas compare with Money’s Best Places Averages.What’s not good: The Best Places for a Long Life and AffordableHomes lists don’t include livability data. The Long Life list’scriteria seem strange: Counties with the longest life expectancyat birth but whose median family income was not more than 5percent below the state median.Best for: Anyone looking for pleasant towns near water or placeswith either low house prices or long life expectancies.MoneyWatch.com rating: ★★★
Leave a Comment