July 17, 2006
With A Non-Skinny Grain Of Salt
According Money Magazine’s “Best Places to Live 2006”, San Francisco isn’t a top 100 city. In fact, we didn’t even manage to rank in the top 25 with regard to home appreciation, incomes, job growth, commute, education, air quality, safety, or singles. We did, however, make the Top 25 list in two coveted categories: Priciest Homes (#13) and Skinniest (#2). Now about Houston ranking as the third skinniest...
∙ Money Magazine: Best Places to Live 2006 [Money]
First Published: July 17, 2006 10:03 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Take that skinny ranking with a huge grain of salt. We're tied with all those TX cities?????
Posted by: yeah right at July 17, 2006 5:53 PM
Ya...there's no way a Texas city could be anywhere near San Francisco on the skinniest list. [Removed by Editor]
Posted by: mirabeau at July 18, 2006 7:46 AM
This survey has no credibility, ranking Houston "skinny" is ridiculous. Men's Health magazine (undoubtedly a better judge) has consistently ranked Houston as the fattest city several years in a row.
Posted by: etslee at July 18, 2006 2:00 PM
The Men's Fitness poll used various bogus charecteristics such as "number of fast-food restaurants," "number of bars," and "weather" to arbitrarily determine which was the fattest city.
http://www.mensfitness.com/rankings/305
Money Magazine ussed average BMI, which seems far more adept at determining which cities are fat or skinny.
Posted by: mirabeau at July 18, 2006 3:21 PM
Post a comment
Continue Perusing SocketSite:
« Think Escher (Not Eichler) | HOME | 555 Washington Vote Delayed (Again) By "Administrative Error" »
