Ten mid-sized communities across the United States have been identified as the least livable, facing a complex web of challenges that include poor healthcare access, limited economic opportunities, inadequate infrastructure, and environmental concerns. These areas often find themselves in a cycle where low incomes, poor infrastructure, and a lack of amenities make it difficult to thrive.

Mitch Coluzzi, co-founder of real estate firm SoldFast, noted that many of these struggling communities share characteristics such as hot, dry climates, few economic prospects, and physical isolation. He also pointed to a historical pattern, observing that many of these towns were located near decommissioned railroad lines, which once served as vital links to larger markets. As transportation networks evolved, these communities became reliant on industries that could sustain themselves despite isolation.

Senior economist Ivan Marchena of Just2Trade highlighted that a significant issue in these locations is the severe lack of opportunities for residents to improve their economic standing. He cited highly seasonal employment, lower-than-average household incomes, and, in places like West Odessa, Texas, an economy overly dependent on volatile industries like oil.

The lack of diverse white-collar and technology jobs is another factor, potentially encouraging younger, educated residents to relocate, taking economic growth with them. Melanie Zimmerman, founder and Realtor at MVP Chicago Real Estate, added that while homes might be affordable, the cost of transportation and other services can be higher due to limited local amenities and healthcare access.

The AARP Livability Index, which scores communities on a scale of 0 to 100 with 50 as average, evaluates 61 indicators across seven categories. The ten lowest-scoring communities are:

  1. Fortuna Foothills, Arizona (85367): Ranked last with a score of 35, this community of 28,227 faces significant issues with housing and engagement. Notably, 43 percent of residents are exposed to drinking-water violations, and its poverty rate is 12 percent.
  2. West Odessa, Texas (79763, 79764): Also scoring 35, West Odessa's 31,985 residents contend with a crime rate more than double the comparison average, no local public transportation, and few everyday amenities.
  3. San Luis, Arizona (85336 and 85349): With a score of 37, this city of 35,998 experiences high rates of drinking-water violations (43 percent), a 22 percent poverty rate, and a shortage of primary-care providers.
  4. Pahrump, Nevada (89041, 89048, 89060): This community of 45,811 scored 38, with monthly housing costs exceeding the AARP comparison median. It lacks local public transit and has a shortage of primary-care providers.
  5. Le Ray, New York (13637): Scoring 38, Le Ray (population 25,736) has significantly higher housing costs than the median, 32.1 percent of residents exposed to drinking-water violations, and a very low engagement score.
  6. Delano, California (92315): This city of 50,835 received a score of 39, primarily due to environmental issues, with an average of 106.7 unhealthy air days per year. It also struggles with a high crime rate and a scarcity of primary-care providers.
  7. Yuma, Arizona (85364-85367, 85369): The largest community in the bottom ten with 98,461 residents, Yuma scored 39. Nearly 43 percent of its residents face drinking-water violations, housing costs are high relative to income, and it lacks local transit.
  8. Greenville, Mississippi (38701-38704 and 38731): Greenville scored 39 despite low housing costs. Its median household income is $36,297, 32 percent of residents live in poverty, and it has a high crime rate along with significant exposure to drinking-water violations.
  9. Weslaco, Texas (78596, 78599): Weslaco, with 41,437 residents, also scored 39. While housing costs are near the median, a substantial portion of households are burdened by them. The city has a notable crime rate, no local transit, and some exposure to drinking-water violations.
  10. Wasco, California (93280): Rounding out the list with a score of 40, Wasco (population 26,222) experiences over 100 unhealthy air days annually, faces a high crime rate, and has a shortage of primary-care providers.

Experts suggest that improving these communities requires more than just affordable housing. Developing new jobs, enhancing healthcare services, expanding public transportation, and strengthening environmental resilience are crucial steps. However, breaking the cycle of economic isolation and attracting younger, educated residents remain significant challenges for these areas.