New county ordinance to limit payday lenders Crimes & Incidents, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on May 3, 2012 at 9:18 am
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance Tuesday night that blocks payday lenders and check-cashing businesses from opening new branches in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, May 3, 2012, 8:53 AM
Posted by anti-business, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 9:18 am
This is another assault on the rich by the 99 percenters. Payday lenders are just like any other bankers who are trying to maximize their profits. Is the government picking on small businesses like this because they are not paying enough in campaign contributions?
Posted by moi, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 10:28 am
More payday lenders than Starbucks? Curious comparison.
Since you mentioned Starbucks, why don't we just make the future Palo Alto drive-thru location a time-saver, providing both espressos and payday loans? That way you could make two poor financial decisions at once.
Posted by creolelady, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 11:05 am
Thank you BOS for looking out for the low-income population. I know of many victims that are tangled up with these payday loans. These loan sharkers also sink their teeth into Seniors that are on SSI and SSA because of their direct deposits status!
Posted by Cid Young, a resident of another community, on May 3, 2012 at 11:14 am
These "Pay-Day" lenders are the bottom feeders of our economy. The only difference form them, and the "Banksters" is that THEY go out of their way to prey on the least fortunate ones in the community, the ones who are less sophisticated and financially educated/savvy.
BANKS, cast a really wide net and snares all sorts of folks.
Posted by JustMe, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I would assume that, as horrible as these loans are, people only go to them when they have no alternative and are desperate. I have no problem killing off the predatory practices that target the poor, but is there an alternative we can offer the poor? I don't like the "Sorry, no more pay-day loans, you are just going to have to starve until you get your check" approach.
I have the same problem with the use of child labor in poor countries: If we shut them down, does that mean the children starve? We need a better alternative than just simply closing the doors, or we are going to destroy those we are trying to save.
Posted by old brown desk, a member of the Barron Park School community, on May 3, 2012 at 2:17 pm
justme "If we shut them down, does that mean the children starve? "
Any more than they are? No. Child slavery and child labor perpetuate bad economies and starvation.
It drives the wages up for adults. But nice deflection off the topic of legalized loansharking.
Payday lenders are bottom feeders that were not allowed to abuse loanshark rates under the old laws. Deregulation opened up a Pandora's box of hell. Study after study has shown this to be the case, but they buy a lot of politicians, uh, sorry, they contribute a lot of money.
Posted by JustMe, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 3, 2012 at 2:58 pm
I am sorry, I did not mean to deflect the topic. All I am saying is that there seems to be a need that supports these lenders, and if we just chop off the lenders at the knees, then that need goes completely unfilled. I am wondering if there is any way to fill that need, when called for, without the predatory practices we abhor. How can we support the poor without feeding those that prey on them?
On the other hand, encouraging borrowing towards payday encourages living on debt, I fear. Given time and poor borrowing practices anyone can feel put-upon by even the most lenient of terms.
But if borrowing from a payday lender is the only way someone can feed their kids, then if we do away with that lender, we have to find a way to get those kids fed, right?
> that the commission is not taking away existing services, only
> limiting growth.
It would be interesting to know what legal right the Supervisors claim to restrict businesses that they don't like? If a business is not otherwise engaging in illegal activities, what right does the BOS have to shut down, or even limit growth, of those businesses?
I've donated to my church's emergency fund that is to be used for emergencies such as the ones people seek out payday loans for. These emergency funds help the working poor. If you wish to donate but don't belong to a church, it may take some research to figure out which churches do. I already asked around & the Unitarian Churches in the area often have emergency funds.
I know that there are a few nonprofits that have similar funds, but I don't know of any in Santa Clara County.