Yes. Bert is a fascinating person. I met him the early '80s and run into him at least once a year. I run into him at least once a year at an over-the-top Christmas party for Reedies and others. I always try to chat with him for a little while because he has very interesting tidbits of news to share.

I was shocked to see Portland as the best place for young couples. I guess real estate prices didn't figure too heavily in this year's survey. I suppose the same argument could be made for all the big cities that made the list as best places for "Singles". Rent in those places is hardy cheap and owning real estate in most of those cities is simply out of the question. (Maybe Bert is considering only the wealthy singles.)

Not bad! Born in No. 2 and living (near) No. 3. And I can thankfully say Stockton is only a distant childhood memory (the weather is nice, although the earthquake-free zone is bunk: the first three or four earthquakes I experienced were living in Stockton).

Hmmm, this ranking process appears less than objective.

But since I live here, I'll have to give it as much credence as the award I received last Father's Day.

these sorts of puff "rankings" are always useful nonsense for Realtors, politicians and others looking to promote/sell a place.

other than that, junk. he basically makes it up as he goes--and gets paid for it. good work if you can get it.

i noticed the sacred myth of Portland being a "green" city was repeated, though. ugh.

Portland is the "green city" with the crappy brown river. With all that manure when it rains, it should be green.

And, Colorado Springs? Is he for real? Colorado Springs has got to be one of the most religiously reactionary cities in the U.S. I would never, ever, recommend it as a "best" place to live.