-
And so it continues...
All nine members of the Woodbridge, N.J. Town Council on Feb. 15 voted to eliminate surcharges at township ATMs owned by financial institutions. The ordinance is slated to take effect on March 9. Financial institutions that do not comply will face a fine of $1,000 a day. But financial industry organizations, including the New Jersey Bankers Association and the New Jersey League Community and Savings Bankers, are seeking injunctive relief in federal district court. Similar anti-surcharge ordinances won approval in the California cities of Santa Monica and San Francisco late last year, but a federal judge issued an injunction allowing banks there to continue collecting the convenience fees. Based on that decision, Samuel D'Amiano, president of the New Jersey League Community and Savings Bankers, said he is "optimistic" that an injunction will be granted in New Jersey as well. Noting that recent court decisions in California, Connecticut and Iowa have all favored financial institutions, John P. Mulkerin, president and CEO of Woodbridge-based First Savings Bank, agreed, "I don't think there is any chance of this standing up in court." Like the California ordinance, the Woodbridge proposal will affect only ATMs owned by financial institutions. Exempting ATMs owned by independents is unfair and discriminatory, Mulkerin said. Mulkerin's bank, First Savings, charges non-customers a $1 fee to use its six ATMs in the township. However, unlike many other financial institutions, First Savings does not collect a "foreign fee" from its own customers who use ATMs outside of its network. If the Woodbridge ordinance does take effect, Mulkerin said his bank will limit ATM access to customers only. "We would cut off all non customers, period." Mulkerin believes that Woodbridge Mayor James McGreevey, who was a candidate for governor in 1997 and is expected to run again in 2001, had personal motives for introducing the ordinance. "He's on the front page of the (local) paper today," Mulkerin said. "I guess this was a lot cheaper than paying for political advertising."
Sponsored by:
Features
Sponsored by:
News
Blogs
User Comments
- No data available.
Sponsored by:
