Worst run cities in the U.S. What's the common factor?

Here are the 10 worst-run cities according to WalletHub’s July 9 release:

• Washington D.C.
• Detroit, Mich.
• New York City, N.Y.
• San Francisco, Calif.
• Gulfport, Miss.
• Oakland, Calif.
• Chattanooga, Tenn.
• Flint, Mich.
• Cleveland, Ohio
• Hartford, Conn.

https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2018/07/10/survey-washington-worst-run-cities/

The common factor? It's certainly not a mystery for those of us who pay attention.

They are mostly cities run by the corrupt Democratic Party machine.

 

Democrats.

 

Wallethub has a ton of interesting stats on many areas. The fact you searched until you found something that, with a little cherry picking, fits your ideology make your post worthless.

 

I see very little traction for this post either. But then it is hard for liberals to argue against the truth.

 

Answer: Democrats.

 

One things for sure, If democrats destroy cities there definitely a white person to blame for it.

 

How so?

Seems you had to come up with something, so you decided to ignore wallehubs report and attack the poster.

That would make your post, what? Can I give you a hint?

 

I just have to wonder, how did Chattanooga get on the list? How did Chicago get left off?

 

Here's the original article:
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869/

If you look at the methodology, it simply ranks the cities on various quality-of-life metrics, and divides the result by the per-capita city budget.

That's fine as far as it goes, but it will have two effects:

1. It will unfairly penalize large cities, where the cost of living tends to be higher, and there are quality-of-life items -- like clean air -- that don't just happen on their own.
2. It will unfairly promote cities that depend more on state and federal funding, as well as small cities in rural areas where problems tend to be smaller to begin with.

Thus, it's no surprise that our largest cities are clustered at the bottom of the list, while the top is dominated by small cities in rural areas.

But it's also not particularly meaningful.

 

Large black populations.

 

It's worst run cities not quality of life issues.

 

In addition, if you simply look at the basic "Quality of city services" metric, many of those large cities rank quite well. The cities are quite livable and provide high-quality services. It's just that those services are expensive to provide in very large urban areas.

Similarly, note that the top-ranked city for "Quality of city services" is Huntington Beach. But it falls to 14th in the "most-efficient" category, largely because it is ranked near the bottom for air quality. I leave it to the reader to decide how much "air quality" is something cities should be held accountable for when determining if they are "well-run", given that they air pollution is typically a regional effect.

 

DId you even read the link? The "worst-run" metric is BASED ON "quality of life" metrics.

 

I did read the study and it's conclusion is these cities are very poorly run and that's why the quality of life is so bad. You can run but you can't hide.

 

Politics?

 

So you read it, but you didn't understand it. Got it.

 

I read it and understood it while you read it and spun it to get the political result you desired.

 

Er, Chicago is on the list. Just not in the bottom 10.

And if you look at the detailed methodology, Chattanooga is ranked poorly in terms of financial stability, health and safety, and only middling in everything else (it's highest rank in any category is #40).

 

You clearly didn't, because your statements on this have been factually wrong.

First, you said it wasn't about "quality of life" metrics, even though the ranking is calculated by first ranking the cities on 35 quality-of-life metrics. (It then divides that by the per-capita budget to arrive at "cost per quality-of-life point" value).

Next, you claimed that the "worst-run" cities are poorly run, so they have poor quality-of-life scores.That is also untrue. As I had already pointed out, many of the "worst-run" cities on the list actually score quite high on the "quality-of-life" metrics. It's just that the cost-per-point is higher, so their efficiency score is low.

So whenever you have made a factual statement, you have been wrong. Care to try again?

 

Yeah.....they do excel at failure. Ya might call them the Elites of Failing.

 

Haha, pointing out the worst run cities are run by Democrats is now "cherry-picking."

Who cares that it's true; the fact that we bring it to your attention is what you consider a wrong. How progressive of you.

Great example of why liberals/progressives/socialists want to suppress the First Amendment and control our news sources, as well as why they depend on using fake news in their daily propaganda...

 

I'm surprised no one had any else to say about this, even if it was just blind outrage.

There are plenty of blue cities that don't have dysfunctional administration and oddly enough they lack large black populations.

 

But it does not negate the fact that 9 out of 10 are run by Democrats, does it? It is only "worthless" if it is YOUR party...it is par for the course for the rest of us...

 

That would certainly explain why dems keep getting voted in to run these cities into the ground since blacks are widely known to vote democrat. In 2008, I think there were a few precincts in Philadelphia where MORE than 100 percent of registered voters voted for Obama.

Steve

 

We need to send a ton of democrat B'crats to Iran. They would destroy that country in 10 years.