So I'm checking out the The Daily Beast's list of "15 Worst Cities to Have a Baby, From New York to Miami." How did they decide which were the worst cities? No, they did not just throw darts at a map of the U.S. What they did was consider factors such as higher cost of living versus lower quality of life, the number of ob/gyns per capita, parents' commute time, the percentage of population 5-years-old or younger, and the number of playgrounds per 10,000 residents. Do you think your city is on the list?
Read more ¿Qué más?: Truth Be Told: The 5 WORST reasons to have a baby
I wasn't at all surprised to find my city, San Francisco, California on the list. My city was #9 and I expected it to be on the list because it's expensive here. I was surprised that 6 cities in my beloved California made it onto the list. That's a whole lot of California being represented. Whatever, I still love me some California and I'm happy to be raising my babies in San Francisco.
Check out the top five WORST cities to have a baby and then check out the full list of the 15 worst cities to have a baby, just in case you're planning to move and procreate any time soon.
Image via Thinkstock
#1 New York, New York
You know what they say, if you can make it there … I still love New York!
#2 Santa Cruz, California
I guess Santa Cruz is for the birds, not the babies.
#3 Los Angeles, California
Could it be that the city of angels is no place for babies? Say it ain't so!
#4 Hagerstown, Maryland
I don't know, it looks like a nice place to me, but I've never been there nor have I had a baby there.
#5 Worchester, Massachusetts
Well, maybe they just need more playgrounds or something.
