California’s Progressive Utopias Leave Pets to Die in the Streets

From San Francisco to Los Angeles, liberal budget mismanagement leaves animal shelters underfunded and strays abandoned.

Created with ChatGPT

⏱️ 3 min read

Liberal-Run Cities Stray From Their Core Functions

Progressive leaders in California’s cities love to preach compassion, but their actions tell a different story—where dogs, cats, and even the occasional hamster or turtle, are left to fend for themselves. Mismanaged budgets, bloated bureaucracies, and a laundry list of pet projects (pun intended) have gutted animal shelters, proving that strays do not have a seat at the table when it comes to fiscal priorities. San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles are the latest exhibits in this parade of incompetence, where layoffs and policy shifts signal a grim future for our four-legged friends.

Frisco’s Shelters Slashed, Strays Screwed

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco’s SPCA, once a beacon of animal welfare, laid off 32 staff members—11% of its workforce. Two-thirds of those cuts hit the animal hospital, gutting veterinary assistants and technicians. CEO Jennifer Scarlett blames “external pressures” like economic uncertainty and a veterinarian shortage. Still, with $46 million in revenue and $119 million in reserves, you would think they could afford to keep the kennels staffed. Instead, they are “restructuring” while claiming services will not take a hit. Sure, and I bet those laid-off technicians are thrilled to hear their skills, honed over the years, are suddenly expendable.

Oakland’s “Open Door” Slams Shut

Across the bay, Oakland’s Animal Services took it a step further. According to Oakland Voices, the city council passed an ordinance letting the shelter refuse strays when it is over capacity, because nothing says “progressive compassion” like turning away a lost puppy. The shelter, designed for 73 dogs, is crammed with 75 large ones, thanks to a 13% intake spike from 2022 to 2023. Budget cuts have left staff stretched thin, and volunteers on social media, livid, warning of increased euthanasia and abandonment. But do not expect city hall to care—they are too busy funding feel-good initiatives that make for better photo opportunities than actual results.

Los Angeles: Where Pets Pay the Price

Down south, Los Angeles’ shelters are a mess of their own. According to the Los Angeles Times, Mayor Karen Bass’ proposed 2025-26 budget nearly cut $4.8 million from Animal Services, threatening to close three of six shelters—Harbor, West Los Angeles, and West Valley. Public backlash forced a $5 million save from an obscure fund, but 122 positions—33% of staff—were still at risk. Overcrowding is so bad that 1,224 dogs were euthanized from January to September 2024, a 72% jump from the prior year. With two staffers handling 275 kennels, “inconsistent cleaning and feeding” is now standard, per a consultant’s report. Animals are an afterthought in L.A.’s $1 billion deficit—apparently less important than the next ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Progressive Priorities: Anything But Pets

Why are shelters in crisis? Look at the budgets. California’s progressive leaders are too busy funding pipe dreams to care about paws on the ground. San Francisco pours millions into social experiments and public art. Oakland’s budget is a black hole, yet they will find cash for anything but kennels. Los Angeles prioritizes helping illegal immigrants and massive pay raises for workers over shelters. According to Shelter Animals Count, statewide stray dog intakes rose 6% from 2022 to 2023 and 22% since 2021. But animals do not have lobbyists or unions, so they are the first to get the boot when budgets bloat. A homeless golden retriever does not generate the duplicate headlines as a new bike lane.

So, Does It Matter?

This is not just about stray pets—it is about cities so obsessed with progressive wish lists they cannot fund the basics. San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, under total liberal control, are squandering taxpayer dollars on trendy nonsense. At the same time, animals roam free, crime spikes, streets crumble, and graffiti spreads like a nasty rash. Animal control is a core government function, yet it is starved to feed bloated bureaucracies and utopian schemes that sound great in press releases but accomplish little in practice. If cities cannot keep dogs and cats off the streets, what hope is there for tackling potholes, trash, or public safety? It is time to demand fiscal sanity and prioritize the services residents—and their pets—need, before California’s cities become a free-for-all for strays and chaos alike.