Stan Patterson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To whom it may concern:
>
> I would like to set the record straight on a few
> things I just read that are very false. One, the
> taxes where let go because for the last seven
> years there has been on again off again talks with
> state/county for the sale of that property for
> various uses including trail and widening of
> highway 95. Both parties being cash poor, tax
> forgiveness was much easier then them writing a
> check. The fact that Mike Williams is a scrapper
> is a nonfactor in this whole issue. He has held
> on to the line longer then anyone I know would
> have in his situation. He paid 1.1 mil for the
> line and at it highest value in 07 it was worth 13
> mil; yet it was not pulled out. The fact that the
> line was already abandoned when purchased, Mike
> had no reason to mislead anyone since it could
> have been torn out at any time. Nothing was
> lifted until the city of Cottonwood wanted it gone
> and even then it was only pulled where it was not
> wanted. I would especailly like to comment on the
> fact that it was announced the line would open
> again. Coming from myself, the person that "did
> the declaring" of reopening the most, I can attest
> that it was always the goal. If not for multiple
> missfortunes it would have happened. The line was
> put into service all the way to Cottonwood. Bridge
> work was done and grain shuttle cars were prepared
> for service; all so UP could give us cars.
> However, the 60 cars/week agreed upon (as stated
> in contract with UP) showed up 300 cars/week. This
> lead to the cars needing to be stored at the
> bottom of the hill instead of between Craigmont
> and Cottwood as intended because we could not
> shove them up the hill fast enough. Why would
> anyone planning on scrapping a shortline put any
> money, labor, or time into it? Any comparisons of
> Mike or his company to A&K are a down right
> insult. A&K is a ruthless company and are the
> farthest thing from how Mike conducts business.
> We started to prepare the line to be reopened for
> this harvest and the barge outage. One week into
> the process our bridge foreman hurt himself off
> the job. It is very difficult to find someone
> quailfied and willing to work on those trestles.
> Mr. Williams should be thanked for the fact that
> this line has been in place since 2003. Anyone
> that had the privelage to experience the 2nd sub
> from a motorcar or even driving by should be
> grateful. Mike was the only one who would stick
> his money where his mouth was and buy the branch.
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but my
> god, have the facts first, if not all at least
> some!! If anyone would like to take up this
> disscussion one-on-one please call me at
> 208-290-8148. I would love to chat with anyone
> who thinks this @#$%&. Stan Patterson

While what you say Stan, in this case, may be true, the fact that he paid 1.1 million for an asset worth 13 million only strengthens my position that the Grangeville line is simply "inventory". When ones value of an asset is 13 times the cost you can easily get your investment back out of it when there is no prospect of further profitable rail operations. Just play the scrap market to its fullest...I've done it for years!

While I operate two very successful shortlines, I got into the shortline business BECAUSE I was a SCRAPPER and have salvaged many, many more miles of unprofitable track than I currently operate. Our former Portland Traction operation was once 35 miles; now only 5 1/2. Our Molalla Branch was purchased in 1993 SOLELY as a scrap candidate since the lumber mills were closing. However, development of a new industrial park in Canby changed that equation to where it is the busiest and most profitable part of our operation.

While this may just be more of the "@#$%&" to which is referred, I stand behind my previous statements being one who has done AND IS DOING just that.

Dick Samuels
www.oregonpacificrr.com