Pets, particularly dogs, outnumber children in San Francisco by the thousands, even if there are fewer black ones (see "Racism in pet ownership?").
This SF Chronicle article explains why (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/17/MNGG0QG5N71.D...), but the gist of the article is that 1) there are many gay couples who opt for pets instead of kids, and 2) parents can't usually afford to live in the City by the Bay.
I suppose that makes sense, but it just seems like pets are so impractical in the city. My sister has three adorable cats who have lived on both coasts of the United States in various sizes of city, and even though they aren't impossible to take care of, living in a city with them can be tough at times-- she has to find apartments that allow pets (which isn't that hard, but most landlords only allow two), apartments with a backyard that doesn't open onto the street, with cat doors, etc. But at my parents' house in the country (sort of), sometimes the cats are in, sometimes they're out, and as long as they haven't lost their microchips or something, we aren't too worried.
So, if you want to move somewhere where pets are usually welcome everywhere without much of a fuss-- where pet owners are called "pet guardians," leash law debates draw the biggest City Council meeting crowds, and Saturday dog wash fundraisers are more common than car washes-- San Francisco's where it's at.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
