The runners-up: Newark came close (#2), but couldn’t take the crown. San Bernardino, California ranked worst on two of the four metrics (most pollution, least satisfied inhabitants), but only finished #3 overall. Detroit has to be disappointed with fourth place, since they always expect to win this sort of competition. I’m guessing that Flint, Michigan and Gary, Indiana, were too small to qualify for the list.
The champ: I don’t know whether their #1 is the right choice. It never seemed exceptionally dirty to me, but the authors established certain criteria that determined the outcome, and those criteria are only peripherally relevant to cleanliness (excepting “pollution” of course, which is directly relevant).
On the other side of the coin:
- Their metric identified Virginia Beach as America’s cleanest city.
- One surprise to me was the selection of Buffalo as one of the ten cleanest, but I guess I’m thinking of Buffalo in the 1950s.
crazy methodology. San Bernadino is worst in both pollution and customer satisfaction, but because they ship their garbage to a neighboring county and have more places to plug in electric cars, they drop out of the top 3.
There was a kid in my 5th grade class who moved to Denver from Houston circa 1994. He was saying Houston was polluted back then. Not super hard to believe it still is 30 years later.
My city, Syracuse, is only 112?!
Every MAGA lover’s most hated city, the shit covered, homeless infested, hell hole of San Francisco is 97th?!? Below Houston, TX, Tulsa, OK, Jacksonville, FL,?!? How could that possibly be? The ranking must be really screwed up.
OR…maybe Fox is full of shit, and SF is a beautiful city with problems like every other.
You’re not suggesting that their journalism is less than objective? I’m shocked! Shocked!