Blog

Leading a Los Angeles Renaissance

Surprisingly, despite the real challenges Los Angeles faces today, the city is out in front of many of its urban competitors in transforming its capacity to provide a safe place to raise and properly educate children, exactly the criteria Millennials use in deciding where to settle down and start a family. It is the kind of challenge that cities around the country must meet if they wish to thrive in the coming decade.

LA’s biggest win in this respect derives from the political courage of former Mayor James Hahn. It was Hahn who appointed Bill Bratton as police chief, who then deployed his COMPSTAT process for continuously reducing crime. During his tenure as the city’s Police Commissioner under both Mayor Hahn and his successor, Antonio Villaraigosa, Bratton achieved the same improvement in LA as he did previously in New York,– in a city with many of the same societal problems but about one-fourth the police resources and a much larger area to patrol. Even as unemployment soared in 2009 during the Great Recession to 12.3 percent in Los Angeles County, the city saw a 17 percent drop in homicides, an 8 percent reduction in property crime and a 10 percent drop in violent crime. This is a first great step in restoring Los Angeles, once the destination for families, back to its historic promise. Today, Angelinos feel safer than they have in decades.

COMPSTAT is above all a vehicle for changing bureaucratic cultures. In his initial dialogue with the brass of the New York Police Department (NYPD) Bratton told his management team that he planned on holding them accountable for the crime reductions he had promised Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Citing the FBI’s national crime reports, they responded by telling Bratton that since crime “is largely a societal problem which is beyond the control of the police,” it was completely unfair to hold them accountable for reducing it. Since the police department was not responsible for the city’s economic vitality, its housing stock, its school system, and certainly not its racial and ethnic tensions, all of which were the root causes of crime, the managers felt it was unreasonable to expect them to actually reduce crime.

When Bratton asked them what they could be held accountable for, the leadership replied that they were prepared to accept responsibility for the “perception of crime in New York City” and that their existing tactics of high profile drug busts, neighborhood sweeps, and the like were effective ways to manage that perception. Bratton adamantly refused to accept this definition of accountability from his team and went about creating a system that placed accountability for crime reduction on the NYPD’s leadership, something that also worked its way down through the ranks of every precinct in the city and into the fabric of the department’s culture.

This fully captures the type of cultural change that every part of any city’s bureaucracy must undergo to become a Millennial city.

During Mayor Hahn’s tenure in Los Angeles, for example, he expanded the COMPSTAT process to all departments in order to hold General Managers accountable for their performance under a program called “CITISTATS.” Some departments, such as Street Services, Sanitation, and Street Lighting, are still using the lessons learned in that experience to continuously improve the cost and quality of their services.

But Los Angeles’s recovery has often been blocked by the City Council which has proven reluctant to cede its traditional right to intervene in department operations and to direct resources to specific projects or programs in their Councilmanic districts regardless of the overall city’s needs. When Villaraigosa ascended to the Mayor’s office he removed the potential irritant to his relationship with the Council by disbanding CITISTATS. That decision has deprived Los Angeles of key insights that could have been used to help deal with its current budget challenges.

It also removed one of the more promising vehicles for Neighborhood Councils to hold city bureaucrats accountable for the services they deliver. The Councils, although far from perfect, remain one of the city’s best hopes for fulfilling Millennials’ desire for direct, locally-oriented involvement.

In contrast, Mayor Villaraigosa’s determination to hold the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) accountable for the performance of its students has begun to pay dividends. Recently the board voted 6-1 to adopt a policy mandating competitive bids eventually be issued for the management of all 250 “demonstrably failing schools” as defined by federal education law. The parent revolution that spurred this new approach would not have been successful without the support of LAUSD board members that the Mayor had helped to elect.

Including parents armed with new information on student performance in the process of reforming LAUSD’s schools promises to produce schools that deliver superior results at lower costs and to create a new, decentralized, parent-controlled, educational decision-making system that will be especially attractive to Millennials and their parents.

Now that the Great Recession has brought single family housing back to affordable levels in many parts of Los Angeles, the building blocks of safer streets and better schools give the metropolitan area an opportunity to establish an environment that can attract large numbers of Millennials just as they enter young adulthood. To take advantage of this opportunity, however, all members of the city’s leadership will need to learn one more Millennial lesson.

Unlike the Baby Boomers running the Los Angeles City Hall today, Millennials aren’t interested in confrontation and debilitating debates focused on making sure one side wins and the other loses. They want what business people term “win-win” solutions that take into account everyone’s needs and produce outcomes that benefit the group or community as a whole. Los Angeles, a city built on the expectations of the last civic GI Generation that came to LA in the 1940s, must realign itself to the tastes of the emerging next civic generation, the Millennials.

Finding such solutions, given the many challenges LA faces, will not be easy. LA continues to be run by Boomer politicians, like those in Congress, who know how to play up divisive issues, but haven’t demonstrated an ability to get results.

But if today’s leaders in cities like Los Angeles aren’t up to the task, it won’t be long before a new generation of leaders who have grown up believing in such an approach will emerge to take their place. As Ryan Munoz, a politically active high school senior put it, “With all the technology at our disposal, our approach is different. We can be less partisan, less confrontational and work better together.”

Rachel Lester, who at 15 years old just won election as the youngest member of any Los Angeles Neighborhood Council by campaigning with her Facebook friends, captured the potential power of the generation. “When a few teenagers do something, a lot of teenagers do something.” When cities develop leaders as great as America’s newest civic generation, the Millennials, those cities will once again take their rightful place in the pantheon of America’s most desired places to live. Los Angeles would be an ideal place to start that movement.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008. Morley Winograd served as a consultant to Mayor Hahn on the implementation of the CITISTAT process.

Photo by Lucas Janin

April 22, 2010
Financial Reform or Con Game?

The news that Goldman Sachs is facing civil fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission came just days before a Washington Examiner story reported that Goldman Sachs, in the company’s annual letter to shareholders, reassured investors that the financial regulatory reform being voted on this week in Congress will “help Goldman’s bottom line.” Yikes!!

Since the autumn of 2008, all things concerning financial regulation have been moving very rapidly. I often find it impossible to stay in front of it. The legislation is barely made public before it is changed–they even change bills in the days after they are passed. This makes it really hard for the ordinary citizen or even an informed researcher to clearly see where there bill is finally.

Ultimately, this reminds me of a con game I’ve seen played on the streets in New York called Three-card Monte. It requires very fast hands to effectively manipulate the cards. As the professional con artist rapidly moves three cards – two aces and the queen of hearts – around the table, he challenges you to keep your eye on the queen. You are encouraged by the con and his shill – the co-conspirator among the audience – to place a bet on your ability to keep up with the movements. Of course, you can’t win because the game is fixed. But – and here’s why Goldman’s joy at the financial regulatory reform makes me nervous – you will think that you can win when you see the shill winning.

Everybody and their brother have gone on record with some argument for or against the current version of financial regulatory reform in Congress this week. The question most often asked is: Will it end “too big to fail?” In my view, it is not the size of the firms but the size of the risks that are the real problem. While I don’t mind losing $5 on a street corner, all Americans mind losing $3.8 trillion in the Bailout.

Here’s the heart of the problem. There is something going on back-stage at Wall Street called the centralized clearing and settlement system. I worked in it in the US and have studied and consulted to the system in the rest of the world. The system we have in the US was exported around the world thanks to the United States Agency for International Development. The system is designed to let all the stocks and bonds traded on the stock exchanges be paid for electronically. To expedite the process – known as settling trades in stocks, bonds and all the other financial instruments – the system accepts an electronic “IOU” for the shares until the real financial papers can be delivered. It requires that the money be paid immediately. The problem is that the system permits dealers to sell more stocks and bonds than exist without any incentive to deliver on time. The centralized settlement system simply holds the “failed to deliver” open indefinitely in the form of an electronic IOU. The value of the IOUs in the system has risen dramatically since 2001.

Source: Public data, available in annual reports of Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation and its subsidiaries.

Source: Public data, available from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Notice the relationship of the timing of the spike in the bond failures to the financial crisis: the 17 primary dealers reporting to the New York Federal Reserve Bank failed to deliver about $2.5 trillion worth of US Treasury securities for 7 weeks in late 2008 – no fines, no sanctions; worst of all, very little press coverage.

This is the core of the problem – both in practice and in theory. This means supply is infinite – there is no limit to how many bonds can be sold because no one is enforcing delivery. In reality, no one should be able to sell more US Government bonds than the US Government has issued. That’s a problem in the practices supported by the system. The theoretical problem is that all financial instruments, including the bonds issued by city and state governments,, are being sold without any attachment to the real assets. This damages not only buyers in the stock market, but also the companies and governments who are trying to raise the money needed to keep delivering the services that we depend on them to provide.

The practice of allowing the delivery of electronic IOUs in place of shares of stock or Treasury bills is a process that rewards financial manipulation instead of allocating resources to productive uses – the activity that capital markets should be doing. All the Congressional and the Administration talk about Wall Street reform is to centralize more trades into the existing settlement system – the one with the trillion-dollar hole in it! Someone has convinced them that the centralized system can easily track and account for positions – the actual statistics present a very different picture.

April 21, 2010

The Downtown Seattle Jobs Rush to the Suburbs

There are few downtown areas in the nation that are more attractive than Seattle. Downtown Seattle is a dream of spontaneous order and a fascinating place well worth exploring. It is one of the nation’s great walkable downtown areas, with a mixture of older and newer buildings, hills, Ivars Acres of Clams and the Chief Seattle fire boat on Elliot Bay, Pioneer Square, the Pike Place Market (itself the home of the first Starbuck’s coffee) and a hyper-dense 100,000 jobs per square mile.

Downtown boasts the L. C. Smith Tower, which from 1914 to 1966 was the tallest office tower in the west, at 42 floors and nearly 500 feet. Now Smith Tower ranks no better than 35th tallest downtown. Seattle has built so aggressively that a visitor to the observation deck would see more looking up than down. Smith Tower is dwarfed by a skyline containing some of the nation’s most impressive office architecture, such as Columbia Center and the Washington Mutual Building, which was named for the subprime mortgage lending champion.

Downtown has many more historic landmarks, such as the Olympic Hotel and the Washington Athletic Club. The art-deco Northern Life Tower was the second tallest until the building boom of the 1960s and would have been the pride of more downtown areas than not. The 1970s Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson federal building is a rare gem of its age, while the Rainier Bank Building is perched on a tapered base that begs the question as to whether it will collapse before the Alaskan Way Viaduct in the great Cascadian subduction zone earthquake (which is due to strike sometime between now and the end of time).

The Condominium Bust: Downtown Seattle has experienced one of the nation’s strongest central city condominium booms, though its success (and that of others) has long been drowned out by the high pitched chorus of the Portland missionary society. As in Portland, Atlanta, San Diego, Los Angeles and other newly resurgent downtown areas, Seattle’s condominium boom is now a bust as resembling that of a subprime-baby remote desert exurb halfway between San Bernardino and Las Vegas. Even so, the condominium neighborhoods of downtown Seattle are more attractive than what they replaced. Eventually, the large inventory of empty units will be sold or converted into rental units.

The Office Bust: Downtown’s condominium bust has spread to its office market as well. The vacancy rate is now over 20%.

The Employment Bust: Data from the Puget Sound Regional Council of Governments (PSRG) indicates the depth of the problem. From 2000 to 2009, employment in the downtown core declined more than 12%, with a loss of 20,000 jobs. But it would be a mistake to conclude that downtown Seattle’s employment decline stems from the Great Recession. The losses occurred before. In 2007, the last year before the recession, employment had fallen nearly 18,000 from 2000.

Downtown Seattle’s employment decline mirrors trends around the nation and around the world. Now, downtown Seattle accounts for only 8.4% of employment in the four county area, something that would surprise an airline passenger looking at its verticalness from above.

The balance of the city of Seattle has done somewhat better, having lost 3% of its employment since 2000.

Suburban Job Ascendancy: All of the employment growth in the Seattle area has been in the suburbs. While the city, including downtown, was losing nearly 30,000 jobs, the suburbs of King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties added 90,000 jobs (Table). Suburban Redmond, home of Microsoft, added 19,000 jobs all by itself. Even Tacoma, the old second central city and long since defeated challenger to Seattle added a modest number of jobs between 2000 and 2009.

EMPLOYMENT IN THE SEATTLE AREA: 2000-2009

Area	2000	2009	Change	% Change
Downtown	164,255	143,952	(20,303)	-12.4%
Balance: Downtown	338,580	329,182	(9,398)	-2.8%
Balance: King County	646,807	662,470	15,663	2.4%
Kitsap County	70,854	81,617	10,763	15.2%
Pierce County	234,619	264,402	29,783	12.7%
Snohomish County	207,764	241,569	33,805	16.3%
4-County Area	1,662,879	1,723,192	60,313	3.6%
Compiled from Puget Sound Regional Council of Governments data.

If You Built it, They Must be Going: With these trends, it might be expected that local transportation agencies would be rushing to provide sufficient infrastructure to the growing suburbs. Not so. Planners are scurrying about to build one of the nation’s most expensive light rail systems with lines converging on downtown, to feed 20,000 fewer jobs today and perhaps 30,000 or 40,000 fewer in the future. Perhaps this is the train “got a whole city moving again” as the television commercials put it?

What about growing Redmond? It’s on the map. The line is scheduled to reach Redmond sometime between now and the end of time.

April 21, 2010

The Best Cities For Jobs
This year’s “best places for jobs” list is easily the most depressing since we began compiling our annual rankings almost a decade ago. In the past–even in bad years–there were always stalwart areas creating lots of new jobs. In 2007’s survey 283 out of 393 metros areas showed job growth, and those at the top were often growing employment by at least 5% to 6%. Last year the number dropped to 63. This year’s survey, measuring growth from January 2009 to January 2010, found only 13 metros with any growth.

Mike Shires at the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, who develops the survey, calls it “an awful year.” Making it even worse, the source of new jobs in almost all areas were either government employment or highly tax payer-funded sectors like education and health. This year’s best-performing regions were those that suffered the smallest losses in the private economy while bulking up on government steroids.

So far the recovery has favored the government-dominated apparat and those places where public workers congregate.After all, besides Wall Street, public-financed workers have been the big beneficiaries of the stimulus, with state and local governments receiving more than one-third of all funds. Public employment grew by nearly 2% over the past three years, while private employment has dropped by 7%.
Small Sized Cities

Medium Sized Cities

Large Sized Cities

All Cities

Read how we pick the best cities.
Private sector workers have also seen their wages decline, while those working for the various levels of government have held their own. Federal workers now enjoy an average salary roughly 10% higher than their private sector counterparts, while their health, pension and other benefits are as much as four times higher.

Not surprisingly government workers, according to a recent survey, are more likely to see the economy improving than those engaged in the private sector. It’s not so pretty a picture on Main Street; personal bankruptcy filings rose 23% in the year ending in March.

Small Is Still Beautiful

Despite these differences, some patterns from previous years still persist. The most prominent is the almost total domination of the top overall rankings by smaller communities. With the exception of Austin, Texas, all the top 10 growers–and all the net gainers–were small communities. Americans have been moving to smaller towns and cities for much of the past decade, as well as jobs, and this recession may end up accelerating the trend.

At the top of the list stands No. 1 Jacksonville, N.C., whose economy grew 1.4%, paced by 3.3% growth in government jobs. Fast growth, however, is not a stranger to this Southern community, whose employment base has grown 22.8% since 1998. The area includes the massive Marine Base at Camp Lejeune, a beehive of activity since the U.S. started waging two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fort Hood-Temple-Fort Hood in Texas came in fourth place overall with Fayetteville, N.C., home to the Army’s Fort Bragg, placing sixth and Lawton, Okla., home of Fort Sill, close behind at No. 7. Similar explanations can apply to war economy hot spots Fort Stewart (No. 20 overall) and Warner Robbins (No. 26), both in Georgia.

But perhaps nothing captures the current zeitgeist more than the presence, at No. 23, of Hanford-Corcoran, Calif. A large Air Force base and a state prison have bolstered Hanford-Corcoran’s economy, which shows that even in the Golden State–an economic basket case whose unemployment keeps rising–a large concentration of government jobs still guarantees some degree of growth.

Not all our top-ranked small stars got their stimulus from Uncle Sam. Energy-related growth explains strong performances from Bismarck and ag-rich Fargo, N.D., at Nos. 2 and 8, respectively. You can also credit some energy-related growth to the high standing of Morgantown, W.Va., (No. 17) and Anchorage, Alaska, (No. 18), which have benefited from consistently high prices of oil and other sources of energy.

Texas at the Top of Big Cities

Our list of best places among big cities is dominated this year, as last, by Texas, with the Lone Star State producing fully half of our top 10. This year, like last, the No. 1 big city (those with a more than 450,000 non-farm jobs) was Austin, Texas, which enjoys the benefits of being both the state capital and the home to the University of Texas, as well as a large, and growing, tech sector.

But the Texas story also includes places that do not enjoy Austin’s often overwrought “hip and cool” image. Broad-based economies, partly in energy, have paced the growth of No. 2 San Antonio, No. 3 Houston, No. 5 Dallas and No. 7 Fort Worth. Other consistent big-city Southern performers include No. 8 big metro Raleigh-Cary, N.C., as well as two ascendant Great Plains metropolises, No. 9 Omaha and No. 11 Oklahoma City. None of these places were too hard-hit by the mortgage meltdown, and they all have retained reputations as business-friendly areas.

The other big winner among the large areas is an obvious one: No. 6 ranked greater Washington, D.C. While most American communities suffer, our putative Moscow on the Potomac has emerged as the big winner under Barack Obama and the congressional centralizers. Remarkably, federal employment in the area has grown at a smart pace throughout the recession. One partial result: Washington office space is now–for the first time ever–more expensive than that in Manhattan. Northern Virginia, home to many beltway bandit companies, ranks No. 4 on our list.

The Eds and Meds Economy

With the productive economy outside energy only now getting its footing, the biggest relative winners have been what could be called the “eds and meds” economies. This includes de-industrialized places such as Pittsburgh (ranked a surprising No. 13), Rochester, N.Y., (ranked No. 17) and Buffalo, N.Y. (No. 20). If you have few more factory jobs to lose, little in-migration and a huge collection of institutions relatively immune to the economic turndown, you have a better chance to look good in bad times. The stimulus tilted more toward education and health than to construction and infrastructure, something that has worked to the favor of these cities.

We can see this in New York City, whose huge and growing concentration of colleges and hospitals helped propel it to No. 10 among the big regions, its best ranking ever, despite losing almost 130,000 jobs. This is all the more remarkable since the Big Apple was the epicenter of the financial collapse, although that also made it the prime beneficiary of the federal bailout and Wall Street’s boom. Soaring salaries for hedge fund managers and new hires at financial firms could be pacing new growth in the city’s elaborate service industry, from toenail painters, restaurateurs and psychologists to dog walkers and yoga instructors.

The health of the eds and meds economy, however, has even been enough to lift some traditional bottom-dwelling sad sacks, such as No. 14’s Philadelphia, to unfamiliar, if rather relative, heights. With private-sector growth weak everywhere, cities with lots of big hospitals, universities and nonprofit foundations look better for the time being than they have in a generation.

The Road Ahead

We expect our list to change next year, but how it will do so will depend as much on politics as economics. The current policy approaches–with healthy increases in government employment and strong support for education–have worked relatively well for taxpayer-financed economies including those with a strong “eds and meds” sectors. State universities, now confronted with the real pain of the recession felt by state taxpayers, are already crying for heavy increases in federal support.

But if Congress takes a turn to the center, or even right, after November, the advantageous position of the favored government-supported sectors may erode. Particularly vulnerable will be state workers, whose current federally sanctioned reprieve could be terminated if voters force legislators to start addressing concerns over the huge governmental deficits both locally and nationally. Given D.C.’s unique ability to print money, Washington and its environs will likely continue to expand, as they did under the spendthrift Bush regime, but many state and local governments may be forced onto a stringent diet.

On the other hand, a welcome return to basic growth in overall economy would further boost those relatively low-cost areas–notably in Texas, the Great Plains and the Intermountain West–that have in recent years enjoyed the strongest trajectory in the non-government related sectors, including natural resource-based industries . These places have pro-business regulatory and tax regimes, lots of available land and affordable housing, which will attract new businesses and workers to their areas.

This change could also benefit some places, such as Silicon Valley, parts of Southern California and the Pacific Northwest, which despite high costs still retain globally competitive, tech-related sectors. A resurgent job market in these areas would erase the current apparent advantage enjoyed by “eds and meds” based economies in favor of those places that will serve as the real incubators for a revived private sector economy. With the resumption growth, hopefully, our economy next year will begin resembling the more capitalist, competitive one we have enjoyed in the past.

This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

Photo: kiril106
April 20, 2010
2010 How We Pick the Best Cities For Job Growth
Small Sized Cities

Medium Sized Cities

Large Sized Cities

All Cities
By Michael Shires

The methodology for the 2010 rankings largely corresponds to that used last year, which emphasizes the robustness of a region’s growth both recently and over time. It allows the rankings to include all of the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports monthly employment data. They are derived from three-month rolling averages of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics “state and area” unadjusted employment data reported from November 1999 to January 2010.

The data reflect the North American Industry Classification System categories, including total nonfarm employment, manufacturing, financial services, business and professional services, educational and health services, information, retail and wholesale trade, transportation and utilities, leisure and hospitality, and government.

“Large” areas include those with a current nonfarm employment base of at least 450,000 jobs. “Midsize” areas range from 150,000 to 450,000 jobs. “Small” areas have as many as 150,000 jobs. Because of the significant declines in employment across the nation which caused some MSAs to drop below the 450,000 and 150,000 job thresholds, the size category for each MSA in the 2010 ranking is kept the same as it was in 2009 to maximize comparability between the rankings.

This year’s rankings use four measures of growth to rank all areas for which full data sets were available from the past 10 years. Because of the expanded availability of data since last year, we were able to include another 61 small MSAs in this year’s rankings for a total of 397 regions. As a result, this year’s rankings can be directly compared to the 2009 rankings for MSAs for the large and midsize categories, but there are some adjustments needed for year-to-year comparisons in small MSA category. In instances where the analysis refers to changes in ranking order, these adjustments are made accordingly.

The index is calculated from a normalized, weighted summary of: 1) recent growth trend: the current and prior year’s employment growth rates, with the current year emphasized (two points); 2) mid-term growth: the average annual 2004-2009 growth rate (two points); 3) long-term trend and momentum: the sum of the 2004-2009 and 1999-2003 employment growth rates multiplied by the ratio of the 1999-2003 growth rate over the 2004-2009 growth rate (two points); and 4) current year growth (one point).
April 20, 2010

Small Cities Rankings – 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Read how we pick the best cities.

Size Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplmnt (1000s)	Size Rank Change 2010
1	Jacksonville, NC	99.8	48.2
2	Bismarck, ND	95.1	62.0	12
3	College Station-Bryan, TX	94.8	98.2	9
4	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	92.7	125.9	2
5	St. Joseph, MO-KS	92.0	59.1	33
6	Fayetteville, NC	91.9	129.7	17
7	Lawton, OK	91.2	43.9
8	Fargo, ND-MN	90.8	121.5	4
9	Yakima, WA	84.9	77.3	70
10	Bloomington, IN	84.9	84.8	96
11	Hattiesburg, MS	83.6	59.5	50
12	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	82.1	95.9	-2
13	Morgantown, WV	81.7	63.5	-2
14	Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA	81.0	19.5
15	Great Falls, MT	80.9	35.0
16	Hanford-Corcoran, CA	80.0	36.8
17	Ithaca, NY	79.9	64.7	42
18	Warner Robins, GA	79.8	58.8	20
19	Iowa City, IA	79.0	90.2	18
20	State College, PA	78.6	74.2	47
21	Pascagoula, MS	77.8	57.3	39
22	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	77.7	124.1	24
23	Columbia, MO	77.5	91.5	11
24	Las Cruces, NM	77.2	67.9	1
25	Pueblo, CO	77.2	56.9	26
26	Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA	76.9	38.3
27	Grand Forks, ND-MN	76.4	53.7	21
28	Lubbock, TX	76.1	129.3	21
29	Kankakee-Bradley, IL	76.1	43.5
30	Waco, TX	76.0	106.1	37
31	Fairbanks, AK	75.9	36.7
32	Jonesboro, AR	75.8	48.7
33	Cheyenne, WY	75.6	43.7	-9
34	Cedar Rapids, IA	75.3	135.9	20
35	Glens Falls, NY	75.2	52.6	55
36	Sioux Falls, SD	75.0	132.4	-10
37	Greenville, NC	74.5	74.9	-4
38	Rapid City, SD	73.8	58.9	5
39	Amarillo, TX	73.6	109.7	5
40	Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL	72.5	44.5
41	Lawrence, KS	72.4	51.9
42	Springfield, IL	72.2	109.7	39
43	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	72.2	53.6	51
44	Billings, MT	72.0	78.4	7
45	Midland, TX	71.7	64.6	-8
46	Alexandria, LA	71.5	64.3	-21
47	Abilene, TX	71.4	65.2	15
48	Haverhill-North Andover-Amesbury, MA-NH NECTA Division	71.3	75.4	63
49	Tyler, TX	70.7	92.7	-19
50	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	70.3	131.9	-14
51	Harrisonburg, VA	70.2	62.0	85
52	Olympia, WA	69.8	99.1	-25
53	Rochester, MN	69.6	103.0	21
54	St. Cloud, MN	69.5	98.6	13
55	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	69.1	56.1	-21
56	Madera-Chowchilla, CA	68.8	33.7
57	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	68.7	54.5	35
58	Auburn-Opelika, AL	68.6	52.2	-18
59	Wheeling, WV-OH	67.8	66.6	31
60	Utica-Rome, NY	67.8	131.0	42
61	Jefferson City, MO	67.7	77.8	30
62	Charlottesville, VA	67.6	98.0	3
63	San Angelo, TX	67.5	43.8
64	Bloomington-Normal, IL	67.4	88.5	16
65	Odessa, TX	67.2	57.7	-51
66	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	67.1	88.0	18
67	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	66.7	71.0	32
68	Dubuque, IA	66.6	53.7	-24
69	Athens-Clarke County, GA	66.6	80.8	-49
70	Laredo, TX	66.6	86.8	-51
71	Manchester, NH NECTA	66.5	98.5	15
72	Ames, IA	66.4	47.0
73	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	66.1	91.6	-55
74	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	65.8	73.1	-13
75	Flagstaff, AZ	65.8	61.8	3
76	Wilmington, NC	65.4	136.6	-26
77	Elizabethtown, KY	65.3	46.1
78	Joplin, MO	65.1	77.7	-42
79	Lebanon, PA	65.0	48.1
80	Coeur d’Alene, ID	64.7	53.0	-52
81	Logan, UT-ID	64.5	52.5
82	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	64.3	92.0	54
83	Altoona, PA	64.1	60.3	72
84	Bangor, ME NECTA	63.6	64.9	30
85	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	63.4	82.9	54
86	Clarksville, TN-KY	63.2	81.0	64
87	Tuscaloosa, AL	62.9	93.1	-5
88	Cumberland, MD-WV	62.7	38.7
89	Johnstown, PA	62.6	59.7	16
90	Ocean City, NJ	62.3	35.8
91	El Centro, CA	61.6	44.6
92	New Bedford, MA NECTA	61.5	63.7	43
93	Topeka, KS	61.2	107.8	-12
94	Longview, TX	61.0	93.3	-71
95	Columbus, GA-AL	60.4	116.8	38
96	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	59.9	90.0	-18
97	Owensboro, KY	59.5	49.1
98	Idaho Falls, ID	58.5	48.3
99	Binghamton, NY	57.6	109.8	14
100	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	57.4	130.4	36
101	Lynchburg, VA	57.4	104.5	-49
102	Goldsboro, NC	57.0	43.2
103	La Crosse, WI-MN	56.9	71.8	-14
104	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	56.7	115.5	8
105	Missoula, MT	56.7	54.1	60
106	Sherman-Denison, TX	56.3	42.2
107	Hot Springs, AR	56.2	36.5
108	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	56.1	68.8	-1
109	Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL	55.8	78.0	61
110	Kingston, NY	55.8	60.5	59
111	Dover, DE	55.8	62.6	31
112	Gainesville, FL	55.3	128.3	-13
113	Palm Coast, FL	55.2	17.9
114	Monroe, LA	55.0	75.7	33
115	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	54.9	55.5	-51
116	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	54.7	60.0	17
117	Eau Claire, WI	54.4	78.2	-15
118	Champaign-Urbana, IL	54.1	109.0	-43
119	Mankato-North Mankato, MN	53.9	51.5
120	Anderson, IN	53.8	40.8
121	Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA	53.5	47.2
122	Lewiston, ID-WA	53.2	25.9
123	Santa Fe, NM	53.1	60.6	-54
124	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	52.9	106.2	45
125	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	52.6	109.9	61
126	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	52.1	70.0	6
127	Casper, WY	51.9	37.9
128	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	51.9	108.4	19
129	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Division	51.6	85.7	53
130	Greeley, CO	51.4	77.0	-81
131	Williamsport, PA	51.4	51.8	52
132	Sandusky, OH	51.0	34.2
133	Lake Charles, LA	50.9	88.6	-33
134	Appleton, WI	50.7	113.3	16
135	Albany, GA	50.3	61.5	28
136	Pine Bluff, AR	49.7	37.4
137	Elmira, NY	49.2	39.1
138	Duluth, MN-WI	49.1	125.8	-9
139	Visalia-Porterville, CA	49.0	106.3	-30
140	Bellingham, WA	48.8	79.2	-62
141	Victoria, TX	48.4	48.1
142	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	48.4	97.4	25
143	Chico, CA	47.3	70.3	27
144	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Division	47.3	112.8	11
145	Lafayette, IN	47.0	91.1	-60
146	Grand Junction, CO	46.9	59.6	-109
147	Rome, GA	46.7	39.7
148	Gainesville, GA	46.0	71.2	-85
149	Valdosta, GA	45.8	52.8	-65
150	Winchester, VA-WV	45.8	53.2	41
151	Pocatello, ID	45.2	36.3
152	Salinas, CA	44.5	120.5	-16
153	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	44.2	95.9	7
154	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	44.0	126.0	-24
155	Springfield, OH	43.9	49.8	8
156	Anniston-Oxford, AL	43.8	49.6	-8
157	Fort Smith, AR-OK	43.7	115.9	-68
158	Bowling Green, KY	43.2	57.6	-64
159	Yuba City, CA	43.1	37.6
160	Johnson City, TN	43.1	76.8	-14
161	Decatur, IL	43.0	51.9	-35
162	Salisbury, MD	42.7	52.2	3
163	Napa, CA	42.7	59.5	-24
164	St. George, UT	42.6	46.4	-54
165	Macon, GA	41.8	96.2	-43
166	Corvallis, OR	41.7	36.7
167	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	41.2	96.5	-34
168	Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA	40.3	43.4
169	Pittsfield, MA NECTA	40.1	34.4
170	Longview, WA	39.7	35.1
171	Brunswick, GA	39.5	41.8
172	Battle Creek, MI	39.1	55.7	41
173	Florence, SC	39.0	82.8	-34
174	Merced, CA	38.9	54.3	-28
175	Cleveland, TN	38.9	38.9
176	Farmington, NM	38.5	48.2
177	Terre Haute, IN	38.2	69.9	15
178	Danville, IL	37.9	29.4
179	Punta Gorda, FL	36.5	39.3
180	Erie, PA	36.3	125.1	-48
181	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	35.9	117.1	19
182	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	35.8	115.3	-37
183	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	35.3	87.7	1
184	Bend, OR	34.8	60.5	-45
185	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	34.6	136.8	19
186	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	33.8	83.3	33
187	Michigan City-La Porte, IN	33.7	43.2
188	Columbus, IN	33.5	41.5
189	Redding, CA	33.1	57.9	27
190	Prescott, AZ	32.7	55.9	-13
191	Port St. Lucie, FL	31.0	118.7	8
192	Wichita Falls, TX	30.3	57.6	-37
193	Medford, OR	29.9	75.7	-20
194	Dothan, AL	29.8	57.6	-5
195	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	29.7	136.0	12
196	Rocky Mount, NC	29.0	60.2	12
197	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	28.0	46.5	13
198	Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	27.4	43.5
199	Decatur, AL	26.7	53.3	-40
200	Gadsden, AL	26.6	35.1
201	Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA	26.1	47.1
202	Carson City, NV	26.0	29.2
203	Bay City, MI	25.5	35.8
204	Yuma, AZ	25.4	49.4	-14
205	Jackson, TN	25.4	57.1	-41
206	Lima, OH	25.2	51.7	8
207	Muncie, IN	23.4	49.1	-4
208	Danbury, CT NECTA	22.4	64.6	-13
209	Burlington, NC	22.1	55.6	-9
210	Wausau, WI	21.3	65.7	-13
211	Danville, VA	21.3	39.2
212	Mansfield, OH	21.0	52.9	-9
213	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	20.8	58.5	-29
214	Spartanburg, SC	20.5	116.3	-90
215	Ocala, FL	20.5	90.8	-48
216	Sheboygan, WI	20.0	58.3	-56
217	Fond du Lac, WI	17.7	43.9
218	Flint, MI	17.4	133.7	9
219	Naples-Marco Island, FL	16.8	109.8	-9
220	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	16.2	57.8	2
221	Racine, WI	15.7	73.3	-35
222	Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV	15.6	43.9
223	Monroe, MI	13.4	37.0
224	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	12.6	130.8	-32
225	Sumter, SC	11.3	35.1
226	Anderson, SC	10.8	58.0	-3
227	Jackson, MI	10.6	53.2	5
228	Waterbury, CT NECTA	8.9	61.2	-6
229	Dalton, GA	7.6	66.0	-1
230	Janesville, WI	7.5	60.3	-9
231	Kokomo, IN	6.0	39.4
232	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	4.7	100.7	-7
233	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	2.5	97.8	-5
234	Morristown, TN	1.5	44.5

April 20, 2010

Midsized Cities Rankings – 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Read how we pick the best cities.

Size Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplmnt (1000s)	Size Rank Change 2010
1	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	86.6	283.2	3
2	Baton Rouge, LA	83.2	367.5	5
3	Anchorage, AK	81.1	168.0	6
4	Huntsville, AL	81.1	207.9	8
5	El Paso, TX	79.8	271.9	6
6	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	78.7	219.0	-5
7	Corpus Christi, TX	76.2	175.8	-1
8	Lafayette, LA	75.6	145.4	-5
9	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	74.5	313.9	8
10	Lincoln, NE	71.2	170.1	23
11	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	69.7	235.2	28
12	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	69.5	174.3	-4
13	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	69.5	199.6	6
14	Lexington-Fayette, KY	66.7	247.4	44
15	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	66.6	335.0	16
16	Tallahassee, FL	65.3	171.4	46
17	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	64.9	438.9	33
18	Syracuse, NY	64.2	315.6	20
19	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	64.2	191.7	9
20	Albuquerque, NM	64.2	377.5	6
21	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	64.0	318.1	23
22	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	63.0	209.2	26
23	Salem, OR	62.8	144.7	4
24	Springfield, MO	62.6	190.6	5
25	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	61.6	282.7	-10
26	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	60.9	329.6	15
27	Jackson, MS	60.3	251.4	25
28	Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA	59.8	252.5	35
29	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	59.8	247.4	17
30	Provo-Orem, UT	59.7	179.8	-16
31	Spokane, WA	59.5	207.6	-7
32	Kansas City, KS	59.2	424.1	-27
33	Madison, WI	58.6	335.1	10
34	Charleston, WV	58.6	146.3	0
35	Boulder, CO	57.8	159.1	-14
36	Bakersfield-Delano, CA	57.2	225.4	-23
37	Tulsa, OK	56.9	406.9	-35
38	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	55.9	156.1	-1
39	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	55.5	265.1	-17
40	Savannah, GA	55.1	150.2	-20
41	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	54.5	186.2	26
42	Columbia, SC	54.2	345.8	-7
43	Knoxville, TN	53.9	319.9	16
44	New Haven, CT NECTA	52.0	266.4	3
45	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	51.9	158.4	40
46	York-Hanover, PA	51.6	173.3	-21
47	Winston-Salem, NC	51.4	207.5	10
48	Calvert-Charles-Prince George’s, MD	51.1	375.9	25
49	Colorado Springs, CO	50.8	244.4	6
50	Ann Arbor, MI	50.7	192.8	43
51	Roanoke, VA	50.4	154.2	9
52	Montgomery, AL	49.6	167.7	-16
53	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	49.1	150.9	-37
54	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	48.5	397.6	20
55	Reading, PA	48.0	164.6	11
56	Green Bay, WI	47.8	160.6	9
57	Evansville, IN-KY	47.4	169.2	24
58	Tucson, AZ	46.2	359.8	10
59	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	46.0	235.1	11
60	Asheville, NC	46.0	164.5	-11
61	Boise City-Nampa, ID	45.9	250.4	-5
62	Lancaster, PA	45.9	224.5	-11
63	Mobile, AL	45.3	171.7	-53
64	Wichita, KS	44.8	286.0	-41
65	Peoria, IL	43.4	174.9	-47
66	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	41.5	161.8	-24
67	Fresno, CA	41.1	281.1	-22
68	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	41.0	215.9	11
69	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	40.5	176.7	-39
70	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	40.3	195.2	-9
71	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metropolitan Division	39.4	372.4	-31
72	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	38.9	333.3	6
73	Baltimore City, MD	37.6	345.6	3
74	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	36.9	292.7	-42
75	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	34.8	193.9	16
76	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	34.7	262.7	-23
77	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	33.6	280.2	-2
78	Stockton, CA	33.2	191.8	-7
79	Fort Wayne, IN	33.0	200.4	-7
80	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	31.1	271.2	7
81	Modesto, CA	29.6	143.6	-1
82	Chattanooga, TN-GA	29.2	225.3	-28
83	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	27.8	154.4	6
84	Eugene-Springfield, OR	26.0	141.5	-20
85	Greensboro-High Point, NC	25.5	340.8	-1
86	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	24.2	360.2	0
87	Akron, OH	21.8	313.2	-18
88	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	20.7	169.1	0
89	North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL	20.4	245.6	6
90	Dayton, OH	20.3	368.4	4
91	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	19.8	195.9	-8
92	Reno-Sparks, NV	19.4	190.6	-2
93	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	17.7	217.1	-1
94	Canton-Massillon, OH	14.6	157.6	-12
95	Toledo, OH	14.4	294.6	2
96	Rockford, IL	12.8	140.9	-19
97	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	8.8	142.2	-1

April 20, 2010

Large Cities Rankings – 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Read how we pick the best cities.

Size Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplmnt (1000s)	Size Rank Change 2010
1	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	88.9	756.8	0
2	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	84.9	827.2	1
3	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	81.0	2,513.6	-1
4	Northern Virginia, VA	77.1	1,291.4	9
5	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	75.7	2,006.9	0
6	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division	75.3	2,380.0	6
7	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	75.2	844.9	-3
8	Raleigh-Cary, NC	74.4	496.9	0
9	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	68.5	453.6	2
10	New York City, NY	66.7	3,655.7	4
11	Oklahoma City, OK	65.1	555.3	-2
12	Salt Lake City, UT	64.9	606.9	-5
13	Pittsburgh, PA	64.5	1,112.7	16
14	Philadelphia City, PA	64.4	647.2	17
15	Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division	64.3	556.1	9
16	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	63.7	1,225.2	18
17	Rochester, NY	63.6	502.8	4
18	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	61.9	536.9	18
19	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	61.7	1,644.2	-3
20	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	61.6	536.3	10
21	Kansas City, MO	61.2	544.0	7
22	Honolulu, HI	60.9	437.2	-3
23	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	55.2	729.7	4
24	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	54.3	1,178.7	-9
25	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	54.3	591.5	12
26	Columbus, OH	52.6	898.2	6
27	St. Louis, MO-IL	50.5	1,286.5	6
28	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metropolitan Division	50.3	1,374.6	-22
29	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	49.7	512.1	26
30	Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN	49.7	719.2	-5
31	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	48.6	802.5	-13
32	Richmond, VA	47.8	595.6	10
33	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	46.0	548.5	-16
34	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	45.6	859.4	1
35	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	45.2	984.7	3
36	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	43.8	998.4	-10
37	Jacksonville, FL	43.3	581.8	7
38	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	42.7	865.0	15
39	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	42.6	966.4	15
40	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	42.3	1,677.2	8
41	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	42.2	959.1	-31
42	San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division	42.1	926.1	-19
43	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	42.1	2,259.3	-2
44	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	39.8	970.5	3
45	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division	38.8	981.9	-5
46	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.3	519.2	-1
47	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	37.6	841.9	-27
48	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	37.4	1,213.2	-9
49	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	35.0	796.3	2
50	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Metropolitan Division	33.7	3,583.0	2
51	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	32.6	1,701.0	-8
52	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	31.7	591.7	-6
53	Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA	31.5	818.2	7
54	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	30.6	1,122.8	4
55	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	27.2	530.2	10
56	Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	26.9	703.5	-6
57	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	26.7	806.3	-35
58	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	24.4	983.2	6
59	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division	22.8	3,778.6	-3
60	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	22.8	1,347.1	3
61	West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division	22.4	498.9	0
62	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	21.9	948.4	0
63	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	21.4	1,108.7	-6
64	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	20.8	485.1	-15
65	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	4.1	689.6	1
66	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	1.1	1,019.3	-7

April 20, 2010

All Cities Rankings – 2010 Best Cities for Job Growth

Read how we pick the best cities.

Overall Rank 2010	Area	2010 Weighted INDEX	2009 Nonfarm Emplymt (1000s)	Overall Rank 2009	Overall Rank Change
1	Jacksonville, NC	99.8	48.2
2	Bismarck, ND	95.1	62.0	18	17
3	College Station-Bryan, TX	94.8	98.2	16	14
4	Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX	92.7	125.9	5	2
5	St. Joseph, MO-KS	92.0	59.1	63	59
6	Fayetteville, NC	91.9	129.7	42	37
7	Lawton, OK	91.2	43.9
8	Fargo, ND-MN	90.8	121.5	15	9
9	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	88.9	756.8	6	-1
10	Durham-Chapel Hill, NC	86.6	283.2	19	11
11	Yakima, WA	84.9	77.3	136	127
12	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	84.9	827.2	20	10
13	Bloomington, IN	84.9	84.8	201	190
14	Hattiesburg, MS	83.6	59.5	99	87
15	Baton Rouge, LA	83.2	367.5	27	14
16	Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA	82.1	95.9	12	-2
17	Morgantown, WV	81.7	63.5	13	-2
18	Anchorage, AK	81.1	168.0	35	19
19	Huntsville, AL	81.1	207.9	40	23
20	Hinesville-Fort Stewart, GA	81.0	19.5
21	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	81.0	2,513.6	9	-9
22	Great Falls, MT	80.9	35.0
23	Hanford-Corcoran, CA	80.0	36.8
24	Ithaca, NY	79.9	64.7	90	71
25	El Paso, TX	79.8	271.9	39	19
26	Warner Robins, GA	79.8	58.8	57	36
27	Iowa City, IA	79.0	90.2	56	34
28	McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	78.7	219.0	7	-16
29	State College, PA	78.6	74.2	108	84
30	Pascagoula, MS	77.8	57.3	93	68
31	Brownsville-Harlingen, TX	77.7	124.1	68	42
32	Columbia, MO	77.5	91.5	51	24
33	Las Cruces, NM	77.2	67.9	31	3
34	Pueblo, CO	77.2	56.9	78	49
35	Northern Virginia, VA	77.1	1,291.4	84	54
36	Wenatchee-East Wenatchee, WA	76.9	38.3
37	Grand Forks, ND-MN	76.4	53.7	70	39
38	Corpus Christi, TX	76.2	175.8	23	-9
39	Lubbock, TX	76.1	129.3	74	41
40	Kankakee-Bradley, IL	76.1	43.5
41	Waco, TX	76.0	106.1	103	69
42	Fairbanks, AK	75.9	36.7
43	Jonesboro, AR	75.8	48.7
44	Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division	75.7	2,006.9	32	-3
45	Cheyenne, WY	75.6	43.7	24	-12
46	Lafayette, LA	75.6	145.4	14	-23
47	Washtn-Artn-Alexdria, DC-VA-MD-WV Mt Dv	75.3	2,380.0	76	38
48	Cedar Rapids, IA	75.3	135.9	77	38
49	Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division	75.2	844.9	30	-10
50	Glens Falls, NY	75.2	52.6	141	100
51	Sioux Falls, SD	75.0	132.4	26	-16
52	Greenville, NC	74.5	74.9	45	2
53	Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA	74.5	313.9	65	21
54	Raleigh-Cary, NC	74.4	496.9	38	-7
55	Rapid City, SD	73.8	58.9	59	13
56	Amarillo, TX	73.6	109.7	60	13
57	Cape Girardeau-Jackson, MO-IL	72.5	44.5
58	Lawrence, KS	72.4	51.9
59	Springfield, IL	72.2	109.7	122	74
60	Portsmouth, NH-ME NECTA	72.2	53.6	146	97
61	Billings, MT	72.0	78.4	67	17
62	Midland, TX	71.7	64.6	47	-4
63	Alexandria, LA	71.5	64.3	21	-31
64	Abilene, TX	71.4	65.2	86	33
65	Haverhill-North Andvr-Ambry, MA-NH NECTA Div	71.3	75.4	187	133
66	Lincoln, NE	71.2	170.1	109	54
67	Tyler, TX	70.7	92.7	29	-27
68	Fort Collins-Loveland, CO	70.3	131.9	46	-11
69	Harrisonburg, VA	70.2	62.0	249	191
70	Olympia, WA	69.8	99.1	25	-34
71	Trenton-Ewing, NJ	69.7	235.2	130	70
72	Rochester, MN	69.6	103.0	110	49
73	Shreveport-Bossier City, LA	69.5	174.3	33	-29
74	St. Cloud, MN	69.5	98.6	96	33
75	Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO	69.5	199.6	71	7
76	Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR	69.1	56.1	43	-22
77	Madera-Chowchilla, CA	68.8	33.7
78	Florence-Muscle Shoals, AL	68.7	54.5	140	74
79	Auburn-Opelika, AL	68.6	52.2	49	-18
80	Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA	68.5	453.6	72	4
81	Wheeling, WV-OH	67.8	66.6	138	69
82	Utica-Rome, NY	67.8	131.0	163	93
83	Jefferson City, MO	67.7	77.8	139	68
84	Charlottesville, VA	67.6	98.0	89	17
85	San Angelo, TX	67.5	43.8
86	Bloomington-Normal, IL	67.4	88.5	117	44
87	Odessa, TX	67.2	57.7	1	-73
88	Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA	67.1	88.0	124	49
89	New York City, NY	66.7	3,655.7	95	19
90	Lexington-Fayette, KY	66.7	247.4	194	117
91	Panama City-Lynn Haven-Panama City Beach, FL	66.7	71.0	150	72
92	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR	66.6	335.0	106	27
93	Dubuque, IA	66.6	53.7	53	-27
94	Athens-Clarke County, GA	66.6	80.8	11	-70
95	Laredo, TX	66.6	86.8	8	-74
96	Manchester, NH NECTA	66.5	98.5	128	45
97	Ames, IA	66.4	47.0
98	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA	66.1	91.6	4	-80
99	Sioux City, IA-NE-SD	65.8	73.1	80	-5
100	Flagstaff, AZ	65.8	61.8	111	25
101	Wilmington, NC	65.4	136.6	61	-26
102	Tallahassee, FL	65.3	171.4	202	114
103	Elizabethtown, KY	65.3	46.1
104	Oklahoma City, OK	65.1	555.3	44	-45
105	Joplin, MO	65.1	77.7	41	-49
106	Lebanon, PA	65.0	48.1
107	Salt Lake City, UT	64.9	606.9	36	-55
108	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	64.9	438.9	177	85
109	Coeur d’Alene, ID	64.7	53.0	17	-76
110	Logan, UT-ID	64.5	52.5
111	Pittsburgh, PA	64.5	1,112.7	169	75
112	Philadelphia City, PA	64.4	647.2	176	81
113	Barnstable Town, MA NECTA	64.3	92.0	238	142
114	Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD Metr Div	64.3	556.1	145	48
115	Syracuse, NY	64.2	315.6	129	31
116	Ogden-Clearfield, UT	64.2	191.7	101	2
117	Albuquerque, NM	64.2	377.5	94	-6
118	Altoona, PA	64.1	60.3	268	167
119	Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA	64.0	318.1	159	57
120	Nassau-Suffolk, NY Metropolitan Division	63.7	1,225.2	180	77
121	Bangor, ME NECTA	63.6	64.9	181	77
122	Rochester, NY	63.6	502.8	137	32
123	Bremerton-Silverdale, WA	63.4	82.9	246	140
124	Clarksville, TN-KY	63.2	81.0	263	156
125	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	63.0	209.2	167	59
126	Tuscaloosa, AL	62.9	93.1	112	3
127	Salem, OR	62.8	144.7	100	-10
128	Cumberland, MD-WV	62.7	38.7
129	Johnstown, PA	62.6	59.7	155	44
130	Springfield, MO	62.6	190.6	102	-10
131	Ocean City, NJ	62.3	35.8
132	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT NECTA	61.9	536.9	199	86
133	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA NECTA Division	61.7	1,644.2	118	4
134	El Centro, CA	61.6	44.6
135	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	61.6	536.3	174	59
136	Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC	61.6	282.7	58	-58
137	New Bedford, MA NECTA	61.5	63.7	229	112
138	Topeka, KS	61.2	107.8	104	-14
139	Kansas City, MO	61.2	544.0	164	45
140	Longview, TX	61.0	93.3	3	-117
141	Honolulu, HI	60.9	437.2	132	11
142	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	60.9	329.6	151	29
143	Columbus, GA-AL	60.4	116.8	224	101
144	Jackson, MS	60.3	251.4	184	60
145	Oshkosh-Neenah, WI	59.9	90.0	98	-27
146	Scranton–Wilkes-Barre, PA	59.8	252.5	203	77
147	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY	59.8	247.4	162	35
148	Provo-Orem, UT	59.7	179.8	54	-74
149	Owensboro, KY	59.5	49.1
150	Spokane, WA	59.5	207.6	91	-38
151	Kansas City, KS	59.2	424.1	22	-108
152	Madison, WI	58.6	335.1	158	27
153	Charleston, WV	58.6	146.3	114	-18
154	Idaho Falls, ID	58.5	48.3
155	Boulder, CO	57.8	159.1	79	-54
156	Binghamton, NY	57.6	109.8	165	31
157	Norwich-New London, CT-RI NECTA	57.4	130.4	226	91
158	Lynchburg, VA	57.4	104.5	52	-84
159	Bakersfield-Delano, CA	57.2	225.4	50	-87
160	Goldsboro, NC	57.0	43.2
161	Tulsa, OK	56.9	406.9	10	-128
162	La Crosse, WI-MN	56.9	71.8	115	-24
163	Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH	56.7	115.5	157	17
164	Missoula, MT	56.7	54.1	276	135
165	Sherman-Denison, TX	56.3	42.2
166	Hot Springs, AR	56.2	36.5
167	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA	56.1	68.8	143	1
168	Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX	55.9	156.1	127	-16
169	Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin, FL	55.8	78.0	282	138
170	Kingston, NY	55.8	60.5	281	136
171	Dover, DE	55.8	62.6	231	85
172	Tacoma, WA Metropolitan Division	55.5	265.1	81	-66
173	Gainesville, FL	55.3	128.3	131	-17
174	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	55.2	729.7	160	11
175	Palm Coast, FL	55.2	17.9
176	Savannah, GA	55.1	150.2	73	-77
177	Monroe, LA	55.0	75.7	243	92
178	Rochester-Dover, NH-ME NECTA	54.9	55.5	64	-88
179	Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ	54.7	60.0	210	57
180	Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME NECTA	54.5	186.2	221	67
181	Eau Claire, WI	54.4	78.2	135	-20
182	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	54.3	1,178.7	113	-43
183	Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN	54.3	591.5	204	47
184	Columbia, SC	54.2	345.8	116	-42
185	Champaign-Urbana, IL	54.1	109.0	83	-76
186	Mankato-North Mankato, MN	53.9	51.5
187	Knoxville, TN	53.9	319.9	195	35
188	Anderson, IN	53.8	40.8
189	Lewiston-Auburn, ME NECTA	53.5	47.2
190	Lewiston, ID-WA	53.2	25.9
191	Santa Fe, NM	53.1	60.6	66	-95
192	Gulfport-Biloxi, MS	52.9	106.2	270	108
193	Burlington-South Burlington, VT NECTA	52.6	109.9	300	137
194	Columbus, OH	52.6	898.2	178	14
195	Parkersburg-Marietta-Vienna, WV-OH	52.1	70.0	193	28
196	New Haven, CT NECTA	52.0	266.4	166	0
197	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL	51.9	158.4	302	135
198	Casper, WY	51.9	37.9
199	Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC	51.9	108.4	230	62
200	Brockton-Bridgewater-Easton, MA NECTA Div	51.6	85.7	292	123
201	York-Hanover, PA	51.6	173.3	92	-78
202	Greeley, CO	51.4	77.0	28	-143
203	Williamsport, PA	51.4	51.8	293	121
204	Winston-Salem, NC	51.4	207.5	192	19
205	Calvert-Charles-Prince George’s, MD	51.1	375.9	236	62
206	Sandusky, OH	51.0	34.2
207	Lake Charles, LA	50.9	88.6	119	-56
208	Colorado Springs, CO	50.8	244.4	190	14
209	Ann Arbor, MI	50.7	192.8	322	145
210	Appleton, WI	50.7	113.3	232	54
211	St. Louis, MO-IL	50.5	1,286.5	179	0
212	Roanoke, VA	50.4	154.2	196	16
213	Albany, GA	50.3	61.5	260	79
214	Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metr Div	50.3	1,374.6	34	-148
215	Pine Bluff, AR	49.7	37.4
216	Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division	49.7	512.1	277	94
217	Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN	49.7	719.2	153	-31
218	Montgomery, AL	49.6	167.7	123	-62
219	Elmira, NY	49.2	39.1
220	Duluth, MN-WI	49.1	125.8	173	-13
221	Framingham, MA NECTA Division	49.1	150.9	62	-125
222	Visalia-Porterville, CA	49.0	106.3	133	-55
223	Bellingham, WA	48.8	79.2	75	-114
224	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	48.6	802.5	125	-65
225	Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT NECTA	48.5	397.6	240	49
226	Victoria, TX	48.4	48.1
227	Peabody, MA NECTA Division	48.4	97.4	261	69
228	Reading, PA	48.0	164.6	219	26
229	Green Bay, WI	47.8	160.6	212	18
230	Richmond, VA	47.8	595.6	218	23
231	Evansville, IN-KY	47.4	169.2	280	84
232	Chico, CA	47.3	70.3	265	68
233	Lowell-Billerica-Chelmsford, MA-NH NECTA Div	47.3	112.8	239	41
234	Lafayette, IN	47.0	91.1	85	-114
235	Grand Junction, CO	46.9	59.6	2	-198
236	Rome, GA	46.7	39.7
237	Tucson, AZ	46.2	359.8	222	21
238	Putnam-Rockland-Westchester, NY	46.0	548.5	121	-81
239	Worcester, MA-CT NECTA	46.0	235.1	228	25
240	Asheville, NC	46.0	164.5	168	-36
241	Gainesville, GA	46.0	71.2	48	-157
242	Boise City-Nampa, ID	45.9	250.4	191	-15
243	Lancaster, PA	45.9	224.5	182	-25
244	Valdosta, GA	45.8	52.8	82	-126
245	Winchester, VA-WV	45.8	53.2	299	90
246	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	45.6	859.4	197	-13
247	Mobile, AL	45.3	171.7	37	-174
248	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	45.2	984.7	207	-5
249	Pocatello, ID	45.2	36.3
250	Wichita, KS	44.8	286.0	88	-125
251	Salinas, CA	44.5	120.5	185	-29
252	Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV	44.2	95.9	247	32
253	Nashua, NH-MA NECTA Division	44.0	126.0	171	-45
254	Springfield, OH	43.9	49.8	250	33
255	Anniston-Oxford, AL	43.8	49.6	215	-3
256	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	43.8	998.4	154	-65
257	Fort Smith, AR-OK	43.7	115.9	87	-133
258	Peoria, IL	43.4	174.9	69	-152
259	Jacksonville, FL	43.3	581.8	227	5
260	Bowling Green, KY	43.2	57.6	97	-126
261	Yuba City, CA	43.1	37.6
262	Johnson City, TN	43.1	76.8	211	-13
263	Decatur, IL	43.0	51.9	156	-69
264	Salisbury, MD	42.7	52.2	251	25
265	Bergen-Hudson-Passaic, NJ	42.7	865.0	258	31
266	Napa, CA	42.7	59.5	189	-39
267	St. George, UT	42.6	46.4	126	-103
268	Edison-New Brunswick, NJ Metropolitan Division	42.6	966.4	269	39
269	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	42.3	1,677.2	242	11
270	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	42.2	959.1	55	-177
271	San Fran-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metr Div	42.1	926.1	144	-89
272	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	42.1	2,259.3	217	-17
273	Macon, GA	41.8	96.2	147	-88
274	Corvallis, OR	41.7	36.7
275	Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA	41.5	161.8	152	-84
276	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA	41.2	96.5	172	-65
277	Fresno, CA	41.1	281.1	161	-77
278	Lansing-East Lansing, MI	41.0	215.9	273	34
279	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL	40.5	176.7	105	-135
280	Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL	40.3	195.2	200	-41
281	Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA	40.3	43.4
282	Pittsfield, MA NECTA	40.1	34.4
283	Newark-Union, NJ-PA Metropolitan Division	39.8	970.5	241	-1
284	Longview, WA	39.7	35.1
285	Brunswick, GA	39.5	41.8
286	Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metr Div	39.4	372.4	148	-95
287	Battle Creek, MI	39.1	55.7	331	87
288	Florence, SC	39.0	82.8	175	-70
289	Merced, CA	38.9	54.3	198	-48
290	Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ Metropolitan Division	38.9	333.3	272	25
291	Cleveland, TN	38.9	38.9
292	Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metr Div	38.8	981.9	216	-32
293	Farmington, NM	38.5	48.2
294	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	38.3	519.2	234	-15
295	Terre Haute, IN	38.2	69.9	287	37
296	Danville, IL	37.9	29.4
297	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	37.6	841.9	134	-117
298	Baltimore City, MD	37.6	345.6	256	4
299	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	37.4	1,213.2	208	-45
300	Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC	36.9	292.7	107	-147
301	Punta Gorda, FL	36.5	39.3
302	Erie, PA	36.3	125.1	149	-106
303	Vallejo-Fairfield, CA	35.9	117.1	295	39
304	Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA	35.8	115.3	183	-74
305	Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA	35.3	87.7	267	9
306	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	35.0	796.3	254	-5
307	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL	34.8	193.9	319	59
308	Bend, OR	34.8	60.5	170	-91
309	Gary, IN Metropolitan Division	34.7	262.7	186	-76
310	Kalamazoo-Portage, MI	34.6	136.8	303	40
311	Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI	33.8	83.3	334	70
312	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL Metropolitan Division	33.7	3,583.0	255	-10
313	Michigan City-La Porte, IN	33.7	43.2
314	Springfield, MA-CT NECTA	33.6	280.2	245	-21
315	Columbus, IN	33.5	41.5
316	Stockton, CA	33.2	191.8	233	-34
317	Redding, CA	33.1	57.9	328	60
318	Fort Wayne, IN	33.0	200.4	235	-34
319	Prescott, AZ	32.7	55.9	252	-18
320	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	32.6	1,701.0	223	-48
321	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	31.7	591.7	237	-35
322	Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA	31.5	818.2	297	24
323	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA	31.1	271.2	311	37
324	Port St. Lucie, FL	31.0	118.7	290	15
325	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	30.6	1,122.8	285	9
326	Wichita Falls, TX	30.3	57.6	209	-68
327	Medford, OR	29.9	75.7	248	-30
328	Dothan, AL	29.8	57.6	271	-8
329	Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ	29.7	136.0	305	25
330	Modesto, CA	29.6	143.6	274	-7
331	Chattanooga, TN-GA	29.2	225.3	188	-94
332	Rocky Mount, NC	29.0	60.2	307	24
333	Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ	28.0	46.5	315	31
334	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL	27.8	154.4	313	28
335	Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL	27.4	43.5
336	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA NECTA	27.2	530.2	318	32
337	Fort Lauderdale-Pomp Bch-Deerfield Bch, FL Metr Div	26.9	703.5	253	-34
338	Decatur, AL	26.7	53.3	213	-75
339	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	26.7	806.3	142	-147
340	Gadsden, AL	26.6	35.1
341	Leominster-Fitchburg-Gardner, MA NECTA	26.1	47.1
342	Carson City, NV	26.0	29.2
343	Eugene-Springfield, OR	26.0	141.5	206	-84
344	Bay City, MI	25.5	35.8
345	Greensboro-High Point, NC	25.5	340.8	296	5
346	Yuma, AZ	25.4	49.4	266	-26
347	Jackson, TN	25.4	57.1	214	-79
348	Lima, OH	25.2	51.7	308	14
349	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	24.4	983.2	309	14
350	Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI	24.2	360.2	310	14
351	Muncie, IN	23.4	49.1	289	-8
352	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metr Div	22.8	3,778.6	279	-19
353	Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division	22.8	1,347.1	306	7
354	West Palm Bch-Boca Raton-Btn Beach, FL Metr Div	22.4	498.9	301	1
355	Danbury, CT NECTA	22.4	64.6	275	-26
356	Burlington, NC	22.1	55.6	286	-16
357	Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division	21.9	948.4	304	1
358	Akron, OH	21.8	313.2	225	-79
359	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	21.4	1,108.7	283	-22
360	Wausau, WI	21.3	65.7	278	-28
361	Danville, VA	21.3	39.2
362	Mansfield, OH	21.0	52.9	288	-19
363	Niles-Benton Harbor, MI	20.8	58.5	257	-51
364	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	20.8	485.1	244	-65
365	Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA	20.7	169.1	312	2
366	Spartanburg, SC	20.5	116.3	120	-191
367	Ocala, FL	20.5	90.8	220	-92
368	North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL	20.4	245.6	325	12
369	Dayton, OH	20.3	368.4	323	9
370	Sheboygan, WI	20.0	58.3	205	-110
371	Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL	19.8	195.9	291	-25
372	Reno-Sparks, NV	19.4	190.6	314	-3
373	Fond du Lac, WI	17.7	43.9
374	Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA	17.7	217.1	321	3
375	Flint, MI	17.4	133.7	333	14
376	Naples-Marco Island, FL	16.8	109.8	298	-22
377	Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI	16.2	57.8	326	5
378	Racine, WI	15.7	73.3	259	-63
379	Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV	15.6	43.9
380	Canton-Massillon, OH	14.6	157.6	284	-39
381	Toledo, OH	14.4	294.6	332	8
382	Monroe, MI	13.4	37.0
383	Rockford, IL	12.8	140.9	262	-63
384	South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI	12.6	130.8	264	-62
385	Sumter, SC	11.3	35.1
386	Anderson, SC	10.8	58.0	320	-7
387	Jackson, MI	10.6	53.2	336	8
388	Waterbury, CT NECTA	8.9	61.2	317	-12
389	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC	8.8	142.2	327	-3
390	Dalton, GA	7.6	66.0	330	-1
391	Janesville, WI	7.5	60.3	316	-16
392	Kokomo, IN	6.0	39.4
393	Holland-Grand Haven, MI	4.7	100.7	324	-9
394	Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division	4.1	689.6	335	1
395	Elkhart-Goshen, IN	2.5	97.8	329	-6
396	Morristown, TN	1.5	44.5
397	Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI Metropolitan Division	1.1	1,019.3	294	-42

April 20, 2010

The Millennial Metropolis

Back in the 1950s and 60s when Baby Boomers were young, places like Los Angeles led the nation’s explosive growth in suburban living that has defined the American Dream ever since. As Kevin Roderick observed, the San Fernando Valley became, by extension, “America’s suburb” – a model which would be repeated in virtually every community across the country.

These suburbs – perfectly suited to the sun-washed car culture of Southern California – have remained the ideal for most Americans. And they remain so for the children of Boomer and Generation X parents, Millennials,(born 1982-2003), who express the same strong interest in raising their families in suburban settings.

According to the most recent generational survey research, done for Washington-based think tank, NDN, by Frank N. Magid Associates, 43 percent of Millennials describe suburbs as their “ideal place to live,” compared to just 31 percent of older generations. In the same survey, a majority of older generations (56%) expressed a preference for either small town or rural living. This may reflect the roots of many older Americans, who are more likely to have grown up outside of a major metropolis, or it may indicate a desire of older people for a presumably simpler lifestyle.

By contrast, these locations were cited by only 34 percent of Millennials as their
preferred place to live. A majority (54%) of Millennials live in suburban America and most of those who do express a preference for raising their own families in similar settings. Even though big cities are often thought of as the place where young people prefer to live and work, only 17 percent of Millennials say they want to live in one, less than a third of those expressing a preference for suburban living. Nor are they particularly anxious to spend their lives as renters in dense, urban locations. A full 64 percent of Millennials surveyed, said it was “very important” to have an opportunity to own their own home. Twenty percent of adult Millennials named owning a home as one of their most important priorities in life, right behind being a good parent and having a successful marriage.

This suggests that some of the greatest opportunities in housing will be in those metropolitan areas that can provide the same amenities of suburban life that Los Angeles did sixty years ago. In this Millennials are just like their parents who moved to the suburbs in order to buy their own home, with a front and back yard, however small, in a safe neighborhood with good schools.

Given the fact that nearly four in five Millennials express a desire to have children, cities that wish to attract Millennials for the long-term will have to offer these same benefits. These Millennial metropolises also will need to be built with the active participation of their citizens, using the most modern communication technologies, to create a community that reflects this generation’s community-oriented values and beliefs. Metropolises that wish to attract Millennials, will also need to include them in their governing institutions. Such cities will have a leg up on those run by closed, good old boy networks that don’t reflect the tolerance and transparency Millennials believe in.

The passion of Millennials for social networking and smart phones reflects their need to stay in touch with their wide circle of friends every moment of the day and night. In fact, 83 percent of this generation say that they go to sleep with their cell phone. This group-oriented behavior is reflected in the efforts of Millennials to find win-win solutions to any problem and their strong desire to strengthen civic institutions. Seventy percent of college age Millennials have performed some sort of community service and virtually every member of the generation (94%) considers volunteer service as an effective way to deal with challenges in their local community.

The other key characteristic of the Millenial metropolis will be how it carves out a safe place for children. The Boomer parents of Millennials took intense interest in every aspect of their children’s lives, earning them the sobriquet “helicopter parents” because of their constant hovering. Now the Generation X “stealth fighter parents” of younger Millennials are turning the Boomer desire to hover and talk into a push for action and better bottom line results.

This can already be seen in cities like Los Angeles where a parent revolution is successfully challenging the entrenched interests in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

The idea began with a website, www.parentrevolution.org, that offered a bargain to parents willing to participate in a grass roots effort to improve individual schools. The organizers, led by Ben Austin, a long time advocate on behalf of Los Angeles’s kids, promised that if half of the parents in a school attendance district signed an online petition indicating their willingness to participate in improving their local school, they would “give you a great school for your child to attend.”

This process has worked both in working class areas like East Los Angeles’ Garfield High School and the Mark Twain Middle School in affluent West LA. With the backing of the parents, Austin went to the Los Angeles school district and demanded that they either put the management of the school “out to bid,” or his organization would be forced to respond to the parent’s demands by starting a charter school in competition with the LAUSD school. Since each child has seven thousand dollars of potential state funding in their back pack, a newly enlightened LAUSD agreed to these demands. When 3000 parents showed up to demonstrate their support of the concept, the school district voted 6-1 to adopt a policy mandating competitive bids eventually be issued for the management of all 250 “demonstrably failing schools” as defined by federal education law.

The key to building the Millenial metropolis will be to accommodate such changes. Places like Dallas, Houston, Austin, or Raleigh-Durham that have survived the Great Recession reasonably well now are focusing on producing open, accessible communities with good schools and safe streets. These communities appear best positioned to take advantage of the next bloom of urban growth. Of course the ability to provide America’s next great generation with good jobs and a growing economy will also be required if any metropolis wants to attract Millennials. But with the right leadership and a sustained effort to focus on the basics of family living, almost any city has the opportunity to become a leader in the rebirth of America’s Millennial Era metropolises.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

Photo: Papalars

April 19, 2010