Friday, March 29, 2024 Mar 29, 2024
62° F Dallas, TX
Advertisement
Publications

THERE ARE 33 BETTER CITIES THAN DALLAS TO LIVE IN

That’s what the survey said, at least. But before you decide to move to Anaheim or Buffalo, you’d better read this.
By Steve Bartlett |

This article began in Cleveland. My flight had arrived the night before at Hopkins International during a drizzly
rain. Hopkins International is not one of the gems of American civil aviation, but I didn’t think much about it
until I was soaked by rain through an open window as I was trying to find the baggage counter. The window was open,
I was told, because the air conditioning wasn’t working. And I had once been critical of DFW.

My client met me at the Holland House hotel shortly after breakfast. He was going to drive me to his business, a
small manufacturing plant, to meet his partner and look things over for a possible acquisition he had called me
about several weeks before. It was an hour drive, and as always seems to happen when a visitor arrives for the first
time in a city, the first subject in the car was Cleveland. I mumbled something which I hoped sounded
complimentary.

’That’s all right,” he answered. “Cleveland has taken some pretty hard knocks, and you guys in the Sunbelt think
you’ve got a lock on the good life, but we manage to get along here.”

I said something encouraging, like, “Great.”

“By the way, you see the Plain Dealer this morning?”

No.

“Some big outfit did a survey of all the cities in the country – maybe the 100 top cities – and Cleveland came out
ranked number 24. So you see, things are a lot better here than most people think.”

I reached for the folded newspaper between us on the seat and located the story on the front page. I was saying
something like, “Well, that’s really nice.” To describe my attitude as merely patronizing would have been kind.

Until 1 saw the list.

Number 34. Dallas ranked number 34. Behind Cleveland.

Like one of Arthur C. Clarke’s 21st century computers, all I could think was, “That does not compute, that does not
compute, that does not . . .”

It was a year before curiosity got the better of me. By then I had learned that the report which presumed to rank 65
American cities objectively according to the “quality of life” enjoyed by their citizens had been prepared by the
Midwest Research Institute in Kansas City. The study, the first of its kind and likely to be the last, was funded by
a small grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of the study, according to Charles Concotti of
The Washingtonian, was “to measure standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA) and to provide
decision-makers with a tool for looking at the strengths and weaknesses of each area.” The sponsors of the report in
the bureaucracy hoped the report would cause the federal government to “reallocate resources” among the cities to
help in areas where they “fall short.” Apparently even before the final report was issued, the “decision-makers” had
about the same reaction as I did. Irate congressmen descended on EPA with complaints and refutations of the results.
Even within the bureaucracy the results were questioned, and sometimes ridiculed, leading EPA administrator Russell
Train to call the report “embarrassing” and a “failure.”

But discredited as the report may have been at the time of its release, within a year the reaction had died down.
The report, discredited or not, is still making the rounds, now and then being quoted as a reliable source of
information. When I heard it mentioned again in a city hearing a few weeks ago, I decided to request a copy and take
a look at it for myself.

Midwest Research Institute, which prepared the report, is an independent, not-for-profit research organization
located in Kansas City. It was founded in 1944 by a group of midwestern civic and industrial leaders to stimulate
the area’s economy and to help resolve regional and national problems. Washington is one of its big customers. The
study cost about $80,000, initially funded by an EPA grant with additional funds from the Kerr Foundation of
Oklahoma.

To summarize the report: In the ranking of the 65 metropolitan areas in the United States with populations of
500,000 or more, Dallas ranked thirty-fourth and Fort Worth ranked forty-fourth. Both cities received overall “C”
ratings, with identical grades in each of the major categories. The grades ranged from “A” or outstanding to “E” or
substandard.

The researchers attempted to base the study on statistical measures, which they believed would provide objective
comparative data without subjective influences. More than 120 of these statistic measures were used, nearly all of
which came from 1970 Bureau of Census data. These measures were divided into five major groups: economic, political,
environmental, health and education, and social.

As I said, Dallas and Fort Worth each received the same grade in each of the five major groups, as follows:
economic, outstanding; political, substandard; environmental, excellent; health and education, adequate; and,
social, good.

Each of these group grades was weighed equally in determining the overall “quality of life” ranking for each city.
That’s an important fact to remember. For example, the second-ranked city, Portland, received a “C” rating on its
economic health and an “A” in the four other categories, giving it an overall “A” average. (How the group ratings
themselves were determined is a little difficult to understand: New York City, on the brink of financial collapse,
received its highest ranking, a “B”, on its economic health.) Obviously, the major fallacy of the report lies in
this initial assumption that these five group ratings should be equally weighed. Granted, economic health does not
represent the total picture, but a city’s economic health decides in large part whether there will even be a
picture. It is difficult to develop parks, to build hospitals, to rehabilitate neighborhoods, or to underwrite
museums without a thriving economy. Bringing the matter down to more human terms, one statistical measure under
economic health was per capita savings; under the political component, one factor was local Sunday newspaper

circulation per 1,000 population. Ask the average guy on the street which is more important, the amount of money he
has in his savings account or the comparative circulation of his morning newspaper, and you’ll have a quick idea of
how unequally such things are regarded.

To get a better idea of how this study was conducted, here’s a quick look at how Dallas and Fort Worth performed in
each of the five major areas.



ECONOMIC. Among the 65 large metropolitan areas in the United States, Dallas ranked number one in economic
health. To repeat, that’s numero uno, the strongest economy in the nation, even by MRI standards. Houston, our
sometimes sister city, ranked a dismal, but close, number two. Fort Worth ranked six. The report notes perceptively,
“On an individual basis, a metropolitan area with a higher stock of wealth and a larger flow of income tends to be
healthier than those with lower wealth and small income, ceteris paribus.” The factors included in this
category included such things as unemployment rate, total bank deposits per capita, and percent of owner-occupied
housing units. It also, for reasons known only to the Midwest Research Institute, included the number of full-time
Chamber of Commerce employees per 100,000 population.



POLITICAL. As I stared at the political component rating, I realized that the rest of this study had been
stacked against us. Of all the reasons to rate Dallas highly vis-a-vis other cities, political climate has to be one
of the highest. By and large our governments are clean, efficient, responsive and staffed by well-paid and
well-regarded professionals. It’s a major scandal in Dallas when a county commissioner drives his county-owned car
to Louisiana Downs, a fact which would make any citizen of Cook County, Illinois, double over with laughter.
Incidentally, Chicago ranked 23 politically. And most importantly, Dallas stands out as one of the last large cities
in the nation to support private enterprise rather than punish it, to respond to citizen needs rather than to
placate citizens and to face hard questions with hard answers rather than with slogans.

Did we make the top ten politically? The top twenty? No. The politics of Dallas was so foreign to these researchers
that we rated 64 out of 65! Now consider the variables of MRI: The very ingredients of Dallas’ governmental and
political life which make it most outstanding are those which bring us a low rating from MRI:

● “local government revenue per capita” (spelled t-a-x-e-s)

● “percent of revenue from the federalgovernment” (that’s right, the higher thepercent of federal dollars needed to
keepyour economy afloat, the higher yourpolitical rating).

● entrance salary of firemen (the high cost of services, which brought New York City to its knees, earned it high
marks with MRI).

In other words, the higher your local and state taxes, the more money you need from the federal government, and the
more you spend on services, the higher your rating. With these criteria, Dallas can be proud it ranked second to the
bottom.

To place this ranking in the properperspective, I should inform you thatBuffalo ranked number one. And onlySan
Antonio ranked below us, number65. Newark ranked twenty-second,Boston tenth, and Hartford ranked sixth.Fort Worth
ranked sixtieth, and Houstonranked fifty-third. You get the generalidea. :



ENVIRONMENTAL. On this one score, we did about as one might have expected. Fort Worth ranked eighteenth, and
Dallas twenty-first. Most of the cities which were above us are obvious: Honolulu, Miami, Sacramento, San Jose,
Phoenix. At least the MRI decided not to use make-believe environmental data in a study paid for by the
Environmental Protection Agency. In terms of air, water, noise, solid waste, climate, and recreation, Dallas and
Fort Worth are about where we would expect: in the upper third. We could use some improvement, but we’re not in too
bad shape.



HEALTH AND EDUCATION. In this area, we probably got what we deserve: Dallas ranked thirty-ninth, and Fort
Worth fifty-fourth. We fell below such comparable cities as Atlanta (37), Houston (33), Kansas City (31), Phoenix
(20) and Minneapolis (7).

The factors included in this portion of the study did not appear to be skewed. True, the study did not give us
credit for the presence of three universities, or the superb junior college system in Dallas County, or Southwestern
Medical School, or Children’s Medical Center. These qualitative measures, had they been included, undoubtedly would
have resulted in a better ranking.

But quantitatively, the study used raw objective data: infant mortality rates, number of hospital beds and
physicians per 100,000 population, percent of males age 16 to 21 who are not high school graduates, and percent of
school age population actually enrolled in schools. By these criteria, Dallas and Fort Worth perform poorly.

The infant mortality rate shows one reason why. This item piqued my interest, so I called the Dallas County health
Department to find out what it is. Then, to obtain a comparable figure I called the regional office of HEW to get
the United States and Texas figures. Dallas has an infant death rate of 17 per 1,000 births against a 15.8 Texas
average and a 15.1 U.S. average. That one of the economically healthiest cities in the world has such a high rate of
infant deaths is troublesome, to say the least. That we do so poorly in comparison to the Texas average, which
includes very many impoverished areas, is shocking.



SOCIAL. Back to never-never land. This component consisted of the weirdest collection of variables I have
ever seen. A total of 43 factors were included, most of which were quite subjective, some of which were
contradictory. For example, the number of motor vehicles registered by 1,000 population was considered a positive
factor, but so was the percent of workers who ride public transportation. (Does it seem to you, as it does to me,
that the more cars there are, the less public transportation will be used?). To further confuse the issue, the
number of motor vehicles had been treated as a negative in the environmental section.

Interestingly, the crime rate was in fact considered. It was given exactly 1 /43rd of the social component, or
l/43rd of l/5th of the study. (I’ll bet that the few citizens who wouldn’t rate economic well-being as the prime
factor in measuring a city’s quality would rate the crime rate as the prime factor.)

In any event, Dallas ranked thirty-fifth in this hodge-podge, and Fort Worth ranked thirty-seventh.

Some interesting omissions did jump out at me. Nowhere in this section was there any mention of depth and breadth of
religious activity. The MRI virtually ignored the role which religious conviction plays in maintaining a healthy
urban environment, making no survey of the number of churches, or another closely related factor: the amount of
charity the people of a city give to their fellow citizens. Last year in Dallas the United Way raised over
$12,000,000 solely through volunteer efforts. The number and intensity of such charitable activities surely says
something about the vitality and health of a city. As far as Dallas is concerned, that is the one measurement which
to me most accurately reflects the “quality of life” and the spirit of this city.



After considerable study, therefore, I came to the conclusion that the report of the Midwest Research Institute is
mostly a sad joke. A joke, because it is based on invalid assumptions. Sad, because it gives currency and authority
to those same invalid assumptions. But if the MRI, in one of the few comprehensive studies of major U.S. cities,
failed to judge Dallas or Fort Worth accurately, how should we judge ourselves?

As in any company or enterprise, the only sure way of judging performance is against the same criteria for the year
before. The city manager’s office of the City of Dallas annually prepares such a rating, which is published in the
inset. Dallas uses seven indicators and shows changes against the previous year. Dallas’ indicators strike me as
much more sensible than MRI’s. We measure ourselves on performance that has real impact on the lives of Dallas
citizens: crime, unemployment, fire deaths, traffic accidents, air pollution, retail sales, cost of living, and the
like. Subjective standards, such as those found in the MRI study, don’t seem as important in the real world of
running a city.

I haven’t called my friend in Clevelandto tell him the results of my research.People in Cleveland need things like
theMRI report to make them feel betterabout the quality of their lives. Peoplein Dallas don’t. And that alone maysay
all that needs to be said.

Related Articles

A packed tray of barbecue (ribs, links, beans, mac, slaw, bread) from Goldee's Barbecue
Recipes

How to Make Goldee’s Barbecue’s Irresistible Smoked Pork Belly And Peach Glaze at Home

House of Plates, a DFW-based food and music outlet, has paired up with chefs all over North Texas for their favorite recipes.
Local News

Leading Off (3/29/24)

Looks like we have a beautiful Easter weekend ahead.
Image
Business

Alternative Wealth Partners Launches $150 Million Investment Fund

Plus: Parking software and solutions company ParkHub merges with U.K.-based JustPark, Spark Spot acquires land for EV charging station in Carrollton, and more.
Advertisement