Cranford Ranked No. 141 on NJ Monthly’s ‘Top Towns List’

The 2013 rankings placed the township at 141 of 514.

Patch file photo
Patch file photo

In 2010, Cranford was ranked No. 34 on NJ Monthly Magazine’s List of 'Best Place to live in New Jersey," but this year the township was ranked much lower at No. 141.

NJ Monthly uses a proprietary formula to create the ranking, which includes factors such as home prices, taxes, crime rates, school results and other lifestyle attributes, according to the magazine. For more on the methodology, visit the full “Top Towns” article in NJ Monthly Magazine.

The article notes Township's average property tax in 2012 was $9,905.  The median home sale price for 2012 was listed as $400,000. Crime rates in the township were noted at 11.4 percent for every 1,000 residents, but violent crimes at .04 percent (using data from 2011).

Morris County’s, Mendham Borough, was named the best town to live in New Jersey for its strong sense of community and relatively low taxes, the article states.

In May, Cranford High School was ranked No. 206 out of 2,000 high schools in the country on Newsweek’s list of “America’s Best High Schools.”  In mid-August, the Township was also named one of the 'Best Places to Live for the Rich and Single' by CNN Money Magazine.

What do you think? Should Cranford have been ranked higher?

Nearby, Westfield was No. 89 on the list, with Scotch Plains at No. 82 and Clark at No. 174.

Donald September 08, 2013 at 09:16 PM
The NJ Monthly survey sounds a lot more realistic -- by an organization that knows the state -- than that silly, mistake-riddled CNN Money piece (which, inter alia, erroneously said Cranford has a music "Conservatory," rather than the environmentally destructive organization that inhabits a flood plain).
Attack of the Baseball Cards September 09, 2013 at 01:08 PM
Donald, you keep ripping the Hanson people calling them environmentally destructive. How is planting trees destructive? How is planting bushes destructive? How is planting flowers destructive? Get your facts straight. By planting they are beautifying the area and are helping to alleviate the flooding problem!!
Brian M Kochera September 09, 2013 at 03:31 PM
141 out of 514 not exactly the top 10. Nothing to be proud of.
Steve September 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM
The flood-plain area now called "Hanson Park" was heavily covered with more than a century's worth of mature trees and dense, natural thicket, which provided extensive flood-water absorption and animal habitat for the many decades I have lived in town. Relatively recently, an organization -- apparently well-meaning but poorly advised regarding reclamation and flood-mitigation issues -- clear-cut many of those trees and removed much of the generations-old growth. In its attempt to "improve" the acreage, a number of young trees and ornamental plantings were put in place by the same organization. Many of the plantings need to be replaced after every major rain event; indeed, such attempts to reclaim much of the flood-plain area are defied by the land and Rahway River, as may be observed following each heavy rainfall or high-water incident, when the area in question is a muddy mess, requiring repeated cleanups. It will take many generations, if ever, before the previous mature trees and natural growth will be satisfactorily replaced by recent artificial efforts.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »