No. 91

Forbes’ top bang-for-the-buck city turned out to be Omaha, Nebraska, where a person can reportedly still find a stable job, an attractive housing market, low cost of living and a swift commute.

No state has been socked as resoundingly as California by the prolonged economic recession. As we get ready to enter 2010, how does Sacramento fare, compared to other cities, when it comes to how hard the hit has been?

Forbes magazine recently published a national top 100 “Best and Worst Bang for the Buck Cities” ranking, and it lists Sacramento as—drum roll, please—No. 91. Ugh. Yes, our town (“Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville Metro Area”) was handed this cranky assessment, thanks to our double-digit jobless rate and the fact that we still have some of the highest foreclosure numbers in the nation.

The ranking—which gave a 1 to 100 rating to cities in eight categories—also had Sacramento scoring low, No. 72, for high vacancy rates and lower, No. 75, for travel time, i.e., it takes too long for us to get wherever it is we’re going. (We scored somewhere in the middle for housing affordability, housing prices and real-estate taxes.)

On the bright side, Sacramento fared in the norm compared to other California cities—San Diego finished at No. 86; San Francisco, No. 90; San Jose, No. 92; Riverside-San Bernardino counties, No. 96. And, at least, Sacramento didn’t rank No. 100! (That dubious honor went to Los Angeles.)