(MONEY Magazine) – I was perplexed by your September article ''The Best Places to Live in America.'' You state that Seattle was ranked first because it scored 73 or higher in four of the nine categories on which cities were rated. But San Francisco, ranked third, scored 84 or higher in four categories. Further, Seattle's average in the nine categories is lower than the averages of lower- ranked cities. What gives? Leighton L. Smith Arlington, Va. -- Each of the major rating categories used in our survey was statistically weighted to reflect the attributes that a representative sample of MONEY subscribers prized most in picking a place to live. A city's position in our ranking of 300 metro areas thus was strongly influenced by how high, or low, it scored in the categories that meant the most to our readers. As a result, a city with seemingly lower scores overall could rate above a place that had higher scores in relatively less-valued categories. This year our readers' top priorities were the availability of doctors and hospitals, a strong local economy, affordable houses and the prospect of house-price gains.

You Easterners are a tad naive. Seattle, San Francisco, Denver, San Jose, Riverside/San Bernardino, Las Vegas -- I wouldn't get within a country mile of those places. They're overcrowded and most have smog. Reno, No. 42? It's got more problems than a dog has fleas. You should talk to someone from the West. To find the best places to live, first wipe out everything east of the Continental Divide. Shove California into the ocean and the rest of the West has some good places. Oregon's pretty fair, except Portland. Northern Arizona is okay. Get away from Seattle and Tacoma, and Washington is all right. Byron D. Jones Sparks, Nev.