Reader comments
Is Salt Lake dragging feet on payday lenders?

It's time to limit the number of "pay day lenders" to zero. Other states have had the gumption to ban these bottom feeders, and it is time for Utah to do the same. I can't understand why a state that has the good sense to limit predatory practices, like gambling, would not see fit to prohibit these loan sharks!

The fact that Rocky Anderson destroyed the Planning Department and the Becker administration bombed the ruins might have something to do with it.

i think that Payday lenders are just like Gambleing. almost they get loans when they don't have the $$$$$$$$ then they have to pay it all back after they recive their Paychecks, to me that really is almost like gambleing, I thinkthat ehy should get rid of all the chains & stores that they have in UT County.

We not only can't see the forest for the trees, we can't see the tree for the leaves. This is not a "build it and they will come" situation. "They" are already out there--payday lenders fill the need and aparently the need is great or payday lenders would not be thriving. I hate payday lenders, but cutting them off only forces people to seek out Guido in a back alley somewhere. So, if we can't see what's happening that's better? Talk about putting our collective head in the sand! What is the real problem here? Payday lenders are a symptom not the problem. If we figure out the problem and SOLVE IT the payday lenders will go away without government intervention. When there's a problem why do we always cry for government to solve it?

I used to live in Georgia where payday lenders are illegal and it was so refreshing not to see the tacky buildings everywhere.

The Utah Legislature should have reined in these loan sharks a long time ago by capping the amount of interest and fees they can charge.

People constantly ignore the evidence that there is a demand for payday lenders. If you need quick cash because you have written several checks that will bounce, or you can't pay a bill that has a steep penalty (such as a reconnect fee or other deposit), then payday lenders offer an alternative.

Just bounce a couple of checks at your local bank and see if their overdraft charges don't look pretty daunting. Their fees are much higher than the interest charged by payday lenders. Of course, since banks call their charges "fees," there is no "interest rate" associated with them. You would be amazed at the amount of profit provided to banks as a result of these fees.

So, while we are busy attempting to rid ourselves of the scourge of payday lenders, in fact these bottom feeders have a lot more company than we are lead to believe. We can eliminate payday lenders by eliminating the need for them.

If you limit the number of payday lenders, this will give the remaining ones a monopoly over the market, including the ability to charge whatever rates they can get away with because they have no competition. Simple economics. Is this a land use issue or a social issue that should be regulated by the federal government and/or banking industries?

Ordinances do not fly through. After an audit that criticized those who try to force issues through the planning process, cutting corners and the public out of the process, it's hard to believe that this is being pushed without respect to the process that needs to be followed. If you want to cut down on predatory lending, great, but be patient enough to go through the legal channels, and do it right.

Got to agree with whoever made the comment about Becker bombing the ruins of the planning department. People quitting, empty positions everywhere, and then his administration is trying to push this through and cut corners so they can look like they've actually accomplished something.

Sounds like we have a couple of payday lenders (or one posing under different names) weighing in. Let's not dispute the need for payday lenders--just enforce the existing usury laws and limit the amount of interest they charge. Payday lenders do, in fact, provide a needed service. But when you have desperate people and greedy lenders it's a combination made for exploitation. That's why usury laws have such a solid and revered history.

So, keep the lenders, but limit their interest rates to something the payday lenders won't have to lie to their mothers about over Sunday dinner.

There IS no "emergency" that justifies the use of a high-rate payday lender. Borrowing MORE money (at an incestuous interest rate) solves no problem. In fact, in most cases, a disconnect fee would be CHEAPER than the eventual impact of the payday loan.

As for bank fees: bank elsewhere!

Payday lenders, such as Republican SLC County Party Chairman James Evans, have political power in Utah. It's another way of insuring that the underclass stays "under", that a core group of uneducated workers/citizens remains that way, and that business has those workers/citizens available as low-cost employees.

There used to be usury laws, you know. Until the Republicans got rid of them.

Is there a real difference? Payday/quick loan/car title lenders don't break legs, I guess... at least physically. These things are unethical, and should be at least regulated, and preferably abolished!

Why complain about the behaviour of local government when it was the State Legislature that created the mess? Complain to the source of the problem.

The general public just does not understand that this is just a ma and pa outfit. That is doing a public service according to our Atty General. He will mess with social issues but legal he has no idea. Just look at his CPS lawyers.

Limiting access to payday loan businesses does not help people. All it does is limit their financial options.

To limit the number of payday lenders only enriches the ones that are allowed. Prior to the 1970 Carter high inflation era we had usury laws to protect people. Back then the loan sharks weren't legitimate and could be prosecuted. Usury rates were usually considered to be rates above 21%. Now days even credit cards can charge much more than that. I say put usury laws back into effect, which would help reduce much of the unsecured debt. Of course until people learn a little bit about individual money management there would be significant pain. Much of the high percentage goes to pay for those that never pay what they owe(including credit card debt). There isn't even much even payday lenders can do to recover unsecured loans except refuse to give more. The mob loan sharks could break your fingers, or worse. A gradual reduction of interest rates would reduce the number of payday loans, by reducing their obscene profit margin.

You talk about the huge fees that come with banks and say that they are more than the interest charged at these places. I don't think that a fee is likely to top 500% interest rates. Plus, if you're smart, you'll go to a credit union. They are not for profit (they make a small profit to pay their employees but they are not in the business to make money. Their board of directors and presidents ususally are unpaid). Credit unions have way better interest rates and almost no fees.

It seems obvious to me that there should be a cap on a REASONABLE interest rate that the loan centers can charge. The loan center still makes a profit, and the borrower won't have to hand over their firstborn and the shirt off their back to get a small loan when times are lean.

Have you ever been to a payday lender? They are nice people that don't "prey" on their customers. I have used them in the past (when an emergency arises) and had a positive experience. I use them when I need a little and make sure it is an amount I can pay back with my next paycheck. The fee is reasonable. I do agree we don't need one on every block, but I'm sure glad they are there when I need them.