Story unfair to payday lenders

Story unfair to payday lenders

What a shame that jour- nalism students at The University of Akron are not being taught about balance, and that The Vindicator is supportive of this trend. Anna Tultz’s March 22 article on payday lenders repeats the same, tired, factually incorrect criticisms regarding payday lending that I read all day, every day, from every single media outlet in the country.

It starts in the very first sentence.

“When it comes to payday-lending businesses and their practices, voters and judges like to just say no.”

Were the article balanced, the next sentence would have been: “However, 12 million Americans like to just say yes”.

That’s the real story – that despite uneducated Ohio voters deciding on a credit product that 96 percent of them don’t even use, and despite judges and legislators enforcing their will on the people – consumers still flock to this short-term credit product.

Furthermore, payday lenders aren’t using “loopholes.” They are operating well within defined statutes. There are other options available – borrowing from friends, pawnshops, credit card cash advances and bouncing checks – yet consumers repeatedly choose payday loans.

Lawrence Meyers, Woodland Hills, Calif.

The writer is president ofPDL Capital, Inc., which has done business in Ohio.