Search This Blog

Monday, October 31, 2011

Bank of America Fee for Debit Card -- wrong fee!

I understand why BofA needs to come up with a new revenue source to replace the ones "legislated away" by Congress.  However, I think "taxing" the Debit card isn't the right service to tax.  It seems to me that they should charge for the over-the-counter services provided by their tellers.  The few times I actually go to a bank it always seems that the people in line ahead of me are doing activities that could be done better an an ATM --and a lot less costly to the bank.  The tellers represent a large labor expense.  The "brick and mortar" bank buildings represent a large real estate expenditure.  Why not charge for those services.  If people are charged extra for using a debit card, they will begin using checks instead!  Check processing is now "free" at most banks -- although, I'm sure that even with the new electronics, the check processing costs more than a debit card to process.  Why not charge a small fee for each check processed?   Some of those consumers who are now using debit cards could switch to credit cards -- however many of those users would be paying their balance off each month, so the bank won't be making that much more revenue.
I think most consumers are aware of the relative costs business encounters for the services provided.  They understand that most of the debit card processing costs involve "fixed costs" involved with the hardware and software, while those that require labor are a large variable cost.  I believe consumers would understand the need for charging for teller service and check processing vs charges for debit card processing which is done electronically

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

San Diego Area Hikes

Prescilla Lister writes regular articles in the San Diego Union Tribune describing local interesting hikes:

Judge sides with city on marijuana co-op closures | SignOnSanDiego.com

Judge sides with city on marijuana co-op closures | SignOnSanDiego.com:
I'm sorry to say that Judge Prager probably made a good ruling in this case. It was a "narrow" subject, in that the state law did not provide any guidance on local zoning.
However the intent and spirit of the proposition was clearly to allow local pot shops to operate.

The state badly needs a new proposition on the ballot to clean up all of this nonsense. It appears to me that the police and district attorneys are "sore losers" since most of them opposed the proposition in the first place, and are desperately trying to protect their jobs.

Our state legislators could clean up the mess too--but they just can't seem to get anything done.

Crowe case plaintiff Houser settles lawsuit - SignOnSanDiego.com

In the Stephanie Crowe case, the 4 police officers, assisted by a psychologist made a bad situation worse by destroying a family and terrorizing the three young boys. Yes they finally obtained a bogus confession, which was later thrown out when the police finally identified the real murderer.

Finally, one of the boys Aaron Houser received a settlement from his lawsuit against the police. It is absurd that the amount of the settlement is being withheld from the public. The only reason for keeping it confidential is to protect the police officers and psychologist from having to own up to what they cost the taxpayer. Even though some, or all, of the settlement may have been paid by insurance, the premiums for that insurance have been and will be paid by the taxpayer. The officers and officials, including the prosecutor and district attorney appear to have gotten away with their crime.


Crowe case plaintiff Houser settles lawsuit - SignOnSanDiego.com:

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Newport council to OK more dredging - Daily Pilot

This article says that Newport Beach plans to dump 300,000 cubic yards of "relatively clean sand" 5 miles offshore. Newport council to OK more dredging - Daily Pilot:

Why can't we get some of this sand dumped offshore in Oceanside instead? We need the sand!