Well, Now They're Just Making Stuff Up

I mentioned my surprise at learning that San Francisco was the third-safest city for kids in America.

Well, now I find a survey that says the city is one of the best places to retire (despite its high costs and lack of people wearing golf pants).

Here's how the study's authors (Kiplinger.com) justified their decision:

Yes, the Bay Area can be an expensive place to live. But retirees willing to bear the high cost of living will find pleasant weather year-round and an eclectic, cosmopolitan atmosphere. Noted for its 200-plus stunning parks and beaches, San Fran also has plenty to offer in the way of art, sports, dining and theater. Nearby Oakland and Fremont offer similar vistas and easy city access at half the cost.

So, Fremont (pictured below) has similar vistas as San Francisco? Wow, okay. That's about as plausible as Milpitas being a great place to be rich and single.



The study listed San Francisco's pros and cons. On the plus side was our "efficient mass transit."

One of the downsides: "a rainy season."

If only we could get rid of that, we'd really be set.

I guess I should be happy that San Francisco scores so well on standardized tests. (If the city were a student, it would be in the Lowell High School chess club.) But it's starting to stretch credulity. What's next? San Francisco is the best city for snowmobile racing? The best city to find a convenient Olive Garden? The best city to meet people who aren't smug about how great their city is?