On top retirement place lists, Seattle area is largely MIA


do_not_enter_signAnother month, another list of best places to retire. And another roster from which Seattle–and for that matter all of Washington State–is missing.

A couple weeks ago, Bankrate.com, a well-known consumer financial services website,  produced a ranking of states as places to retire. By its calculations, Washington State was the third worst for golden-years living, trailing only Oregon and Alaska.

The teasing write-up–“Despite its stunning natural beauty,” it began–cited cost-of-living and crime rates above the national average and an average annual temperature of 48.7 degrees. “The Evergreen State is one of the colder states in the nation,” Bankrate.com declared. And as for taxes–usually a key factor in these listings–Bankrate.com cited Tax Foundation data putting Washington State’s average tax burden on its citizens in the middle of the 50-state pack despite the absence of a state income tax. As I have noted here before, those states lacking a state income tax have a funny way of making up the revenue loss with higher other taxes, most notably on real estate.

The absence of Washington State venues from such lists is the norm. Check out the current list at U.S. News & World Report. And this one at the Huffington Post.  And this one by MarketWatch.com. And this new one of best retirement places for baby boomers. Over the years, I have been the compiler of many retirement-place lists for Forbes.com. This year, three have been published: an overall list focusing on value, best places for a working retirement, and top places to retire rich.

No Washington State entries on any of them.

It’s not total goose-eggs-across-the-board for Evergreen State venues. A current CNN.com list includes Bellingham, much closer to the Canadian border than to Seattle, largely on the basis of senior citizen learning programs at Western Washington University. The 100-entry-long list at TopRetirements.com includes four Washington State cities, though none in the top quarter: Seattle, Spokane, Bellingham and, on the northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula, Port Townsend (which also made an AARP list of “great quirky places to retire.”)

In 2010, a one-time Forbes.com list I put together of top inner-city neighborhoods for retirement included Seattle’s Magnolia section. I’m not retired, but at least I eat my own cooking; when I became New To Seattle the following year, that’s where I settled.

Most of these lists tend to be data-driven, which is why Seattle and other Washington State places tend to fare so poorly. The cost of living, especially housing costs, is high by national standards and the tax situation iffy at best. The winters are colder (although that hasn’t stopped places in North Dakota and Montana from making some of these lists). Crime rates are low but not that low.

Scenic beauty, of which Seattle has plenty, is somewhat harder to quantify and thus gets shorter shrift. So as a retirement lure, the whales and Mount Rainier just don’t cut it.

Follow William P. Barrett’s work on Twitter by clicking here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Seattle crime, Seattle economy, Seattle neighborhoods, Seattle suburbs and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to On top retirement place lists, Seattle area is largely MIA

  1. There are plenty of other retiree-oriented communities around the country, but Florida seems to be more than holding its own.

  2. Aside from the sunshine, Florida offers: 1) infrastructure for retirees; and 2) potentially, a community of friends and family who moved previously. Also, something for the grandkids to do when they come to visit. Interesting to see how that changes as more senior communities pop up around the country.

  3. Florida doesn’t do a lot for me, either. But I think it is undeniable that the state is a bug light for retirees, especially from the Northeast.

  4. Yes, we overstepped it a bit. But we are still on track for a decent, if not lavish, retirement. Would not trade any of the kids for a condo in Florida!

  5. A fair view. The family factor may well trump all. But, as you point out, a lot of retirees have children all over the country, and not near them. You say you have five kids. For most of the 20th century, that was the equivalent of a 401(k) retirement plan.

  6. Maybe I’m betraying my working-class roots, but I can’t understand the “destination retirement.” Why would anyone want to leave their kids and grandkids, their community, and the support networks they’ve built up over time? Sure, you might need to downsize the house, move to a senior community and take other steps to secure your retirement, but leaving the state seems a little drastic to me. My parents have a very comfortable retirement in the same Los Angeles neighborhood they have lived in for the past 60 years. I should be able to do the same in the suburbs of Seattle. Unless, of course, all five of my kids move out of the area. Then I guess I’ll look at the “best places to retire” list to see which one gets to have mom and dad as neighbors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s