Atlanta 83 out of 100 in Forbes report on affordable cities

[napi21]

When it comes to affordable cities with stable employment and good housing markets, a new Forbes.com report ranks Atlanta below average.

Forbes puts metro Atlanta at No. 83 out of 100 large U.S. metro areas on a list of the "Best Bang for the Buck Cities."

The survey looked at factors like commute times, home vacancies, housing affordability, real estate taxes, unemployment and jobs forecast.

Atlanta ranked 15th for housing affordability, 93rd for travel time, 39th for real estate taxes, 72nd for unemployment, 95th for vacancies, 92 for its future job outlook, 51st for future home prices and 78th for foreclosures.

The "best bang for the buck" list is topped by Omaha-Council Bluffs, Iowa; Little Rock, Ark; and Jackson, Miss.

The lowest-ranked communities on the list include the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island metro area (No. 98), Miami (No. 99) and Los Angeles (No. 100).

Click here for the Forbes report. And click here for the full list of 100 cities.


http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/12/07/daily11.html?ed=2009-12-07&ana=e_du_pap

[enid602]

1. move

I´ve got to get with it and move to Omaha-Council Bluffs, Little Rock or Jackson immediately, before they become too expensive!!!!!

[onehandle]

2. Atlanta is dying. It was killed by the ring of Boortzers that surround it.

We should declare Atlanta a state and build a high wall at the perimeter.

Me? I am trying to leave.

[napi21]

4. I dont really have to leave because we're both retired, but

my son CAN'T move. He currently has a decent job, but it's iffy even though he's been there 19 years, but 5 years ago his wife decided she was leaving him. They have joint custody of the 2 kids and joint sharing of all the expenses and of course physically caring for them. He works 6AM to 2PM and they say at their mother's house. When he doesn't have to work the next day he keeps them with him. Any childcare needed is a shared expense. If he were to move, he'd never see his kids, and that's not an option.

I honestly don't think I'd want to live in AR,IA, or MS. It may be cheap to live there but employment opportunities are very limited, and 2 of the 3 are redder than red! If money was no object so I could just visit my son & his kids often, I'd choose NY, one of the New England States, or Northern California.

[RavensChick]

3. I'm not surprised by this.

Not only is it going to get expensive but the crime rate is gonna skyrocket from what I'm hearing.

[KamaAina]

5. Apples to oranges

Of course smaller cities are going to have better commute times than major metros. Lower home prices, too, in most cases.

[misanthrope]

7. And more limited opportunity, both cultural and economic.**nm

**

[misanthrope]

6. They seem to be quite slanted toward the red states...

...and red areas in general. Maybe there are deeper reasons not discussed in this survey as to why housing is so "affordable" in those areas.

For instance, Birmingham, Ala. is ranked 28 on this list and there's a fair amount of well-publicized political corruption, crime and economic difficulty in that area.

[Romulox]

8. I wouldn't live in any of the places ranked "best". Sorry. nt

[ecstatic]

9. It's a decent option for people who prefer bigger cities without too much cost

It just depends on what you want. A rural town far from a culturally diverse, large city is not an option for me.

[Touchdown]

10. I'd have to go to #35 before I find a city I'm willing to live in.

Albuquerque NM, then skip to 43 for my city, Denver-Aurora, CO