The City of Oakland, California is proposing an ordinance to limit the number of dogs in a household to no more than three, citing problems of unsanitary living spaces when too many dogs live under the same roof.

The new law will not require owners who currently have more than three dogs to give up any of their dogs, however, once a dog dies, or changes ownership, a household cannot replace it. Moreover, the law doesn't apply to puppies less than 4 weeks old, or to kennels.

To summarize, if one person creates a problem, then everyone has to suffer. This law burdens responsible dog owners, and does nothing to address those who create the problems.

The City already has an ordinance, under its Building Code, 15.08.230, Paragraph Q "Vector Control", addressing unsanitary living spaces. Moreover, the County of Alameda, under its Health Code, has a provision entitled, "Fly Control", which requires all trash and waste to be removed from a house at least weekly, and requires all homeowners to take measures against creating a fly nuisance. Finally, the State of California, under its Health Code, has a law regarding the use of buildings for human habitation (17920.3.j), which addresses the accumulation of garbage, organic matter, and other unsanitary materials.

So, it looks as if the City of Oakland already has the laws its needs to address the problem of dog owners not maintaining a clean living space. So why are they creating this new law?

Well because the City doesn't want to spend any money enforcing the existing laws. Enforcing those laws means hiring more law enforcement officers, and creating more court cases. It would rather use its tax revenues to fatten the pensions of its union employees, than to actually protect its own residents. They figure if they make it illegal to own more than three dogs, they will reduce the "likelihood" of a home becoming unsanitary.

It's like that old saying, "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns". Dogs, or guns, the solution is the same. The only way to address a problem is to go after the problem. When you elect lazy lawmakers, you get "lazy legislation".