Bristol rates #84 in Money's list of best small cities in which to live

Like most everyone, I felt a little startled to see that Bristol had whipped a lot of towns across the country that seem to be hopping a lot more than the Mum City.

But the reaction to Money magazine's choice of Bristol as the 84th best place to live among cities with 50,000 to 300,000 people is kind of crazy.

The Hartford Courant's choice to banner the story across the top of its front page -- with barely a nod to West Hartford's even higher rating -- was clearly a reflection of its shock at the notion that Bristol has anything much for going for it.

And many of the comments I've read from Bristol residents on Facebook and elsewhere have been equally scornful of the city.

I don't get that.

Bristol has nice neighborhoods, decent schools, a good hospital, plenty of recreation, terrific parks, an improving library and much else to commend it beyond ESPN and Lake Compounce. Sure it could be better -- and the newspaper has tried to nudge it to make improvements for generations -- but it's a far cry from struggling neighbors such as New Britain, Waterbury and Meriden.

Yeah, it's not West Hartford. But Bristol offers something different from West Hartford that makes it an attractive spot for many, many families.

Personally, I hope that residents will view this listing not as a mistake -- though it's probably a little too kind -- but as a challenge to their own thoughts about their hometown. Bristol has a lot going for it.

It would have even more if more of its residents could grock the notion that it has an even better future ahead. Let's build toward that future on the solid foundation that's here in Bristol now.

Money magazine's #84 may be too generous. But with a positive attitude and some hard work, Bristol can earn it -- and then some.

The ranking opened some eyes. Now give the world something to see.

*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com