The friendly Southern Pacific

[markpierce]

Here is some evidence that the Southern Pacific really [:O][:O]was friendly:

Union Pacific evicts California Boy Scout troop

SAN LEANDRO, Calif. – For the past 85 years, Boy Scouts of American troop 503 has spent countless hours helping the Bay Area community of San Leandro, said an article in the Daily Review newspaper of Oakland, Calif.

But a few months ago, the troop was evicted from railroad property on Carden Street, where an old 27-foot trailer containing the boys' camping equipment, records and flags has been kept for the past 20 years. According to Mark Miller, the troop's committee chairman, there had never been a problem when the site was owned by Southern Pacific. The property presently belongs to the Union Pacific.

Citing national security issues, Union Pacific officials told the Boy Scouts it had four days to vacate the premises and an extension would not be granted, Miller said.

John Taufer, a local businessman with Sebring Transportation Co., temporarily offered some storage space for the trailer at the company's trucking yard off Doolittle Drive on the condition that the troop finds a new home as soon as possible. Miller said the Boy Scouts are looking for either a place to store the trailer or a place to store the gear if people don't want the trailer on their property.

[kenneo]

The SP was, even when times were difficult, friendly - well, as friendly as it could be. I hired out there in 1964, and the very first thing - almost beaten into you - that was taught was excellent customer relations and service. At least as good as conditions would permit. Demerits (unpaid days off as a punishment) were given to station service employees for angering a customer.

[Anonymous]

I have mixed feelings about this. While I think that the "national security" issues has been used to justify almost anything, the UP does own the property and has the right to use it has it pleases. Safety is a major consideration at all times.

On the other hand, it comes across to this reader, as so many things that the RR's do has heavy-handed and unneccessarly harsh. "Four Days"? That's not much time to make arrangements to seek a new location and to move things. Maybe the RR had given them longer notice and it didn't make it into the article, but from my own experience with the RR, four days notice would not surprise me in the least. The RR's need friends, or at least understanding, in the general public, then they proceed to do thousands of things that make the public mad at them. his is just another example. They have no sense of what makes good PR, only an bad attitude.

[markpierce]

And futhermore, the Union Pacific "nickel and dimes" the model railroad industry, suing mode makers labeling locomotives and rolling stock with "Southern Pacific, Union Pacific, Denver and Rio Grande, Western Pacific, etc., etc. unless they pay tribute. That is one hell of a corporation. Yes, it is all legal. But it is obscene.

[markpierce]

National security! I want that to be explained in detail by Union Pacific representatives. So, wouldn't it be good to wipe out everything for two miles from a railraod track to provide security? God forbid anyone comes within eye sight of the railroad, or the areas bridges and the docks. Hey! Let's condemn the whole San Francisco Bay Area in the interest of security. Why not propose we move the west coast California population east of the Sierras like we did some of our citizens in WWII?

[chad thomas]

UP has done some [censored] up things but this has to take the cake. In the name of security my a$$. What are the boy scouts in some sort of affiliation with terrorists? How stupid do they think we are? Why don't they just say it how it is?

We are the UP and it's our property and we don't give a rats ... about you or your organization or your community just get out. Oh yea, and be gone in 4 days!!!
[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Dang I miss the SP!!!!

[Anonymous]

Attention all lawyers reading this. Could the Boy Scouts claim ownership of the parcel by adverse possession? After all they have been there for about 20 years which should meet any of the requirements for adverse possession.

[vsmith]

Are they afraid little Johnny will get his Merit Badge in bombmaking?[:0]

Sounds more likely there trying to dodge a liability issue under the guise of 'national security' to me[V]