| Councilmember Kevin McKeown | ||||||||
| Leadership includes listening and learning. This website is interactive. Please let me know what YOU think on this issue. Just click to send me an email: atmfees@mckeown.net. | ||||||||
| Yup, the courts slapped us back. We tried a pioneering consumer protection measure, one that you'll probably never see proposed by state and federal legislators who are dependent on big bank donations for their campaigns. DOUBLE fees just aren't fair! Think of using some other bank's ATM like crossing a toll bridge. After you pay at one end, should you have to feed a toll booth at the other end, too? Truth is, both banks share the first fee... and no matter what you see on TV, your money isn't rushed to you by stagecoach. The transfer is digital, and California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) studies show the actual cost to the bank is 27 cents. Double fees charged at ATMs are unfair to customers, and help big banks compete unfairly with small, local banks who have fewer ATMs. In California, 60% of ATMs are controlled by only two banks. Surprise! They're the same two which, because of our law, electronically barricaded their Santa Monica ATMs against customers who don't bank with them. On October 5, 1999, with final adoption on October 12, Santa Monica became the first city in the country to ban double ATM fees. Our City Attorney's office and particularly Deputy City Attorney for Consumer Protection, Fair Housing and Public Rights Adam Radinsky deserve great credit for their work on this ordinance and their willingness to defend it against the banking industry. |
||||||||
| Here's an update from a column I wrote for the Beverly Hills Weekly. The Ninth District Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently ruled against the case brought jointly by San Francisco and Santa Monica. The original hearing convinced a judge to make the banks put the double fees they were collecting into escrow for possible return to customers, and we figure that account grew to over a million dollars. Don't let anyone tell you ATM fees are small change! |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
SECTION 4.32.040 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING SURCHARGES TO NON-CUSTOMERS AT AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES IN SANTA MONICA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica hereby finds and declares that: A. In recent years, financial institutions have begun imposing new and exorbitant fees on consumers. These fees have been increasing at more than double the rate of inflation. B. Many of these fees are imposed for services which were routinely provided without charge only a few years ago. C. One particularly onerous new fee is a surcharge that financial institutions impose upon non-account holders for using their Automated Teller Machines (ATMs). This fee is in addition to the fee that financial institutions already charge their account holders for using another institution=s ATM. Together, these two fees total an average of $2.57 per transaction, which equates to more than a 10% charge for withdrawing $20.00 of one=s own funds through an ATM. D. These exorbitant surcharges are not necessary either to compensate financial institutions for use of their ATMs or to finance new ATM machines because the institutions are already compensated. Financial institutions already receive a payment (called an Ainterchange fee@) from the ATM user=s home bank for providing the service of the ATM. This cost, in turn, is passed on to the ATM user by his or her home bank in the form of a Aforeign fee.@ Since financial institutions are already being compensated for providing their ATMs to non-account holders, the recently-enacted surcharges represent a form of pure profit that bears no relation to actual cost. E. The imposition of double charges detrimentally impacts competition by giving large financial institutions an unfair advantage over small banks and credit unions, which tend to provide higher interest, lower fees, and more consumer-friendly service, particularly to the elderly and young people. F. The surcharge is also anticompetitive and unfair since it removes any competition from the process of fee-setting. For more than twenty years, without the surcharge, financial institutions negotiated interchange fees and other fees with the ATM networks, and with each other. This form of negotiation served to keep fees reasonable, since all parties had an interest in keeping their own costs down. However, when the consumer bears the full brunt of a new fee, he or she has no leverage to negotiate with the financial institutions, and the result is unreasonable fees. G. Federal and state laws do not remedy the deleterious effects of these surcharges. Local legislation is therefore essential to safeguard the general welfare in Santa Monica by protecting consumers from exorbitant and unfair fees and protecting smaller financial institutions from anticompetitive business practices. Section 2. Section 4.32.040 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows:
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or its appendices inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. |
||||||||
Back to Kevin's
home page?