Leona Helmsley: Should dogs get her fortune?

Lesser mortals used to call Leona Helmsley “the Queen of Mean,” said Stephanie Strom in The New York Times. But boy, did she love dogs. When the famously ill-tempered hotel heiress died last August, she left $12 million to her beloved white Maltese, Trouble. Now it turns out that Helmsley earmarked virtually her entire estate—between $5 billion and $8 billion—for a charitable trust dedicated to “the care and welfare of dogs.” If her final wish survives legal challenges, the trustees could use the windfall to benefit the Humane Society or the ASPCA, or to “finance veterinary schools or research on canine diseases”—or all of the above. Even a gift of $5 billion would total “almost 10 times the combined assets” of the 7,000 nonprofit groups devoted to animal welfare.

Everybody’s laughing at Leona’s eccentricity, said the New York Daily News in an editorial. How fitting that a tycoon famous for her cranky personality would leave the world with a final obscene gesture at her fellow human beings. But think about it for a moment: The Helmsley money could provide for free spaying or neutering of every dog in New York City, ensuring that thousands of pups wouldn’t be brought unwanted into this world, only to be banished to the streets or destroyed at pounds. That’s “not completely wacko after all.” Come on, said the London Times, “$8 billion? For dogs?” With that kind of money, you could build hundreds of hospitals. Or buy 800 million mosquito nets to prevent malaria. “Or 80 million tents for homeless earthquake victims.”

Helmsley once intended to provide that kind of charity, said William Saletan in Slate.com. When she first established her trust, she specified that its main goal would be “to help indigent people.” Later, as she soured on nearly everyone, she struck that provision, giving the full estate to dogs. In the end, she had no love “for the animals who matter most.” It’s a surprisingly common sentiment, said Erica Goode in The New York Times. Numerous studies have found that up to one-third of Americans feel more attached to their dogs and other pets than they do to their families and friends. People, after all, are demanding, unreliable, and unpredictable, while pets provide unconditional love. Is preferring dogs to humans proof of “some deep-seated psychological disturbance”? Not necessarily. But bequeathing $8 billion to dogs—and not a penny to humans—just might be.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up