A case of illegally establishing residences in Caltrain station offices

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
BCL

BCL

Engineer
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
4,413
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
That's bold. I guess there was that Seinfeld episode where George had a bed installed under his desk to nap during the day. But this takes it to a different level.

Prosecutors said that between 2019 and 2020 Navarro allegedly conspired with Worden and approved $42,000 in building expenses to turn an office into a small apartment inside Caltrain's Burlingame train station.​
​
The criminal complaint alleges that Worden used $8,000 in taxpayer funds to build himself similar living quarters inside the Millbrae train station, the newspaper reported.​
​
Navarro and Worden allegedly ensured that no invoice surpassed $3,000, averting further authorization from Caltrain and TransAmerica Services Inc., the firm that employed Worden, prosecutors said.​
 
I wonder if they hadn't used taxpayer funds, would they have gotten caught? I haven't seen any pictures of the apts.
 
John Bredin said:
Judging from the two stations on Google Streetview, Burlingame depot looks like it would make a nice and cozy apartment while modern Millbrae Caltrain/BART station doesn't. I hope Caltrain tries to recoup their money by renting out the apartments if they can legally (zoning, etc.), especially the Burlingame one.
Click to expand...

I think part of it would be the station buildings used to contain ticket offices that would otherwise be empty. I'm guessing that's the space he used. That was discontinued in favor of ticket machines and an interagency fare card.

Millbrae had been a Caltrain station for a long time, so I'm not sure what part of the current structures might have predated BART. I'd used it before, but I don't remember much about it.
 
tgstubbs1 said:
I wonder if they hadn't used taxpayer funds, would they have gotten caught? I haven't seen any pictures of the apts.
Click to expand...
At the very least, it might have complicated charging them with anything beyond simple trespass.

[I'm wondering if this was an ill-considered attempt to try to gain the apartments by adverse possession. Are the stations owned by the government or by somebody else (e.g. UP)?]
 
Anderson said:
[I'm wondering if this was an ill-considered attempt to try to gain the apartments by adverse possession. Are the stations owned by the government or by somebody else (e.g. UP)?]
Click to expand...
Adverse possession in most states requires open and adverse use and occupation under a claim of right for at least 20 years. And adverse possession against the government is usually impossible. I doubt they would have succeeded.
 
Rasputin said:
Adverse possession in most states requires open and adverse use and occupation under a claim of right for at least 20 years. And adverse possession against the government is usually impossible. I doubt they would have succeeded.
Click to expand...

I think it’s 7 years in California, but it also requires paying property taxes by the adverse possessor. It’s really meant for abandoned properties.

I think they’re also owned by the joint powers authority that owns Caltrain, so yeah, government owned.
 
BCL said:
I think it’s 7 years in California, but it also requires paying property taxes by the adverse possessor. It’s really meant for abandoned properties.

I think they’re also owned by the joint powers authority that owns Caltrain, so yeah, government owned.
Click to expand...

OK. It’s 5 years and has a bunch of things including paying property taxes. Trying to hide won’t cut it.

https://schorr-law.com/adverse-possession-requirements-california/
 

Latest posts

Back
Top