Bank Charges for ATM Use

Re “2 Banks to Limit ATM Access in Santa Monica,” Nov. 11: OK, let me get this straight. Both Bank of America and Wells Fargo go along with Iowa’s statewide ban on ATM surcharges. But the banks won’t comply when the ban is imposed by cities like Santa Monica and San Francisco. Is anybody listening in Sacramento?

MICHAEL DANIELS

Marina del Rey

*

Hooray, Bank of America and Wells Fargo! It’s about time that business told government to butt out. I don’t bank with a small bank, because I want access to ATMs without fees. Let consumers vote with the granting of their business. Don’t let the government dictate what “free” enterprise can or cannot do. But then again, Santa Monica is the same city that wants to double the minimum wage for workers west of Fourth Street.

JOE SYKORA

Woodland Hills

*

The flawed fee fiasco regarding ATM charges is now in full bloom. Parochial, shortsighted and downright stupid thinking runs wild. It escapes me why anyone would think that demanding no “foreign” ATM charges is any different from demanding free milk from Ralphs when you only pay for food at Albertsons. We pay for convenience all the time, and if we don’t like the specifics of a deal we can always vote with our feet.

Banks will and should defend their rights in the courts because it’s bad law and it should be squashed.

But banning ATM use of non-customers in Santa Monica? Let’s see now--let’s punish people who aren’t our customers rather than providing an incentive to come to us. Brilliant proposal.

They compound the error by stating that the fees are necessary to cover costs. That kind of thinking implies that prices should be set by cost, rather than letting the market determine pricing. The banks are inviting the public to demand that financial institutions open their books to justify any price. What a lame position--a PR disaster in the making.

FRED FORSTER

Corona del Mar

*

ATM convenience and even expansion are wholly sustainable without the excessive surcharges we have banned in Santa Monica. Bank arguments (“No Lemonade From ATMs,” Commentary, Nov. 8) conveniently omit mention of the preexisting, still-allowed fee your own bank charges when you use a competitor’s ATM. That fee is shared with the other bank, allowing both to fairly cover their costs. Our ATM ban eliminates only the second fee, which was like having toll booths at both ends of a bridge.

I’d not characterize the surcharge ban as “tied up in court,” “against all odds,” or “in a costly and futile legal battle.” Santa Monica’s reasonable confidence that this consumer protection measure will stand is what has bankers like Thomas McCullough writing panicked articles.

KEVIN McKEOWN

City Council, Santa Monica