JO CO named #7 best county in US

KCLofts · Post by **KCLofts** » Wed May 26, 2004 9:47 pm

I didn't get into the methodology or the data, but Johnson County was named as the #7 county in the nation in this study: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/speci ... tory1.html.

Post by **chrizow** » Wed May 26, 2004 10:36 pm

Loudon county? johnson county? rochester, MN?

apparently a chief factor was "Rich White People."

KCforumer · Post by **KCforumer** » Fri May 28, 2004 1:32 am

Check out the poor and often trashy whites in Olathe and Shawnee.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Fri May 28, 2004 8:43 am

Another "Top Of The List" for JOCO. It only enhances our image nationwide.

KC_Fan · Post by **KC_Fan** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:19 am

chrizow wrote:Loudon county? johnson county? rochester, MN?

apparently a chief factor was "Rich White People."

Have you ever been to Rochester, MN? The reason it's ranked so high is the fact that almost 30,000 people are employed by the world-renowned Mayo Clinic. It's clean, very safe, it has a highly educated population, and home prices reflect these attributes. It has nothing to do with race, but affluence certainly follows the percentage of college graduates in any county.

Johnson county mirrors many of these accolades and we should all be excited for having a top tier county in our Metro area.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:24 am

When numbers tell me the "best place to live" I'll go ahead and check out....how can you try and use statistics for such a subjective topic?

Insane.

Post by **chrizow** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:40 am

i am pleased that a metro county was included in the list, since many folks who read the lists think they are legitimate.

it's just a tad frustrating that the counties included on lists like this are 99% of the time just like JoCo. JoCo is a great example of a whitebread suburban county (that is largely affluent, regardless of the "trash" in shawnee and olathe) that always makes it on the list.

i'll take history, urbanity, diversity, and culture over strip centers and sim-city style cul-de-sac mazes any day.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:50 am

KCPowercat wrote:When numbers tell me the "best place to live" I'll go ahead and check out....how can you try and use statistics for such a subjective topic?

Insane.

Best places to live:

http://money.cnn.com/best/bplive/cities_table/

As you can see Olathe, Overland Park, and Leawood made the top listings also.

I am sure that the methodology of this is based o similar data.

I am also sure that if KCMO or any place on the MO side were to get such rating, there would be all sorts of positive things said about it.

Post by **staubio** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:56 am

GuyInLenexa wrote: I am also sure that if KCMO or any place on the MO side were to get such rating, there would be all sorts of positive things said about it.

I think that is the point, GIL. You can't capture a lot of people's reasons for living in some places. Best places to live... why? The idea is that these rankings won't ever capture the reasons why many of us love living in the city because they couldn't possibly statistically understand why. Sure, we could fare well on some arts/culture/whatever index if it was calculated in our favor, but who cares.

I think the complaints about such listings are valid. Yes, it is good for the metro and it will bring us attention and help growth. Yes, these rankings are annoying and subjective. Putting weight in these is letting someone else decide what is important about the place you live, and that is why they are stupid.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Fri May 28, 2004 9:56 am

Great for those cities/counties making the list....my point is numbers can't tell me where it's best to live. I lived in Lenexa, hated it....but how can that be, JoCo is listed as the #7 place to live.

These lists are always biased to rich white suburbs......hopefully nobody actually uses this list to decide where to live. What's next, best color, best flavor of ice cream? It's subjective is my only point.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Fri May 28, 2004 12:15 pm

KCPowercat wrote:hopefully nobody actually uses this list to decide where to live.

Right. But these kinds of lists probably reflect both the factors that they do use (e.g., crime, jobs, schools, hospitals) and the conditions that their arrival produces (e.g., income, commute times, percentage with college degrees).

In the end, unless you're a retiree, job opportunties generally are the biggest factor in where you live. The Star had an article a few weeks ago about how the Midwest compares to other regions in terms of job growth. The coasts and Sunbelt were twice as high; hence the reason that so many people move to Atlanta, NYC, SF, etc. Sure, KC is a great place, and I'm glad to be here, but unless there's a good job here, you probably a) won't move here, or b) won't stay here.