ACORN Member Calls Payday Loan Customers "the wrong element"

People who use payday loans and the companies who provide them understand that they fill a need for hard working Canadians who are tight on credit and often facing an unexpected financial crunch. The latest study of who uses payday loans and why is a study of Alberta payday loan users by Pollara on behalf of the Canadian Payday Loan Association and is available here.

While people who use the product rate it favourably, what continues to resonate in the media is that people who don't use it take a different view. One example of this is a recent quote from ACORN member and candidate for city council in New Westminster, BC, David Tate, who complained that payday loan locations "bring the wrong element to the city."

ACORN is a community organization that has most recently made the news in the United States for their role in a voter registration scandal. In Canada, they describe themselves as "the nations largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families." They list among their priorities, advocating for regulation of payday lenders, a priority they share with the Canadian Payday Loan Association, the British Columbia Payday Loan Association and a host of other industry and consumer representatives.

While I may be stating the obvious here, I find it somewhat concerning that a member of an organization that claims to be advocating for the people who use payday loans would describe them as "the wrong element."

What is also concerning is that Mr. Tate is pushing for a limit to how many payday loan locations can be in the downtown core, relying on his claim that these locations are attracting the wrong people to the neighbourhood. If there are enough people who live and/or work in the downtown core to support several payday loan locations then whose role is it to say that people should not have access to a variety of providers? And how is that advocacy? I find it hard to believe that there are any payday loan users asking for a reduction in locations.

Businesses open locations where there are enough people to support those locations, if there weren't, they would close. It is pretty basic supply and demand. And in case you are wondering, it is not a 'chicken vs. egg' argument. Think of other industries. Banks don't open a location where there are few bank users. They find locations where their customers work and/or live. They don't put a branch in the middle of nowhere and then hope that customers will make extra time in their day to visit that branch.

The other piece of this topic that is equally troubling is the notion that the public would be served by limiting competition for a product. By restricting the number of locations for any type of business, you are making the businesses who do get a license incredibly more wealthy and far less interested in enhancing their services or efficiency. Why would they? If there is no threat from 'the guy down the street' offering a cheaper product or better service or longer hours?

Consumers love competition and businesses hate it. Ask any business owner and they will tell you that they would much rather have a monopoly than a highly competitive market. Advocates like ACORN need to make better use of this fact if they are to be truly effective in their quest to improve products and services on behalf of the people they represent.