2 ms·

The public is damaged in nearly identical fashion regardless of whether the housing is used by a specific person/family forever, is handed down to some remainin

The public is damaged in nearly identical fashion regardless of whether the housing is used by a specific person/family forever, is handed down to some remaining employee, is on public land, is on private land, or is ripped out and tossed in the trash. In all cases, the public paid for something that returns no value to them, and the party responsible should make the damaged party whole.

londons_explore 3y ago
Plenty of employers build apartments for their staff. For example a little bed and kitchen so the on-site security guard can sleep overnight but still be on site. Many jobs require a human nearby all the time, but there is no need for them to be actively working. If someone else was on duty at that site next week, then that person would be staying in the apartment. I suspect that is what these were. So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws.
- yuliyp 3y ago
  > I suspect that is what these were. This is not the case. They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators But now the employer knows about it, they should be able to make these facilities available to any of their employees or contractors who might be able to use them, in a way which could benefit the employer. For example, if someone has to work overtime in an emergency, allowing them to stay the night in one of these apartments could allow them to save commuting time and be better rested for the next day, which could improve performance (and reduce safety risks due to tiredness). Or, if someone needs to be rostered on-call to respond to unexpected events, having them stay in one of these apartments may improve their response time if they are called in
    - infecto 3y ago
      The hurdles to get over to reach this logic path is amazing. They used employers funds without approval to build something that benefited themselves. Sure, it happened on employer property but without any type of approval. That is theft, let us not try to come up with complicated explanations to say its not theft.
    - yuliyp 3y ago
      This is the classic "oh I was only borrowing it / gonna give that back" excuse of thieves who got caught with new window dressing.
- dmurray 3y ago
  I can't imagine this would violate zoning laws if the employer did it and declared it it as a temporary structure for construction staff. And the expense wouldn't have raised an eyebrow for the agency reviewing the construction contract. Maybe some permitting laws - should someone have signed off on the kitchenette being properly vented, etc. This is an employee slacking off to build a side project that will be owned by to the company, but mostly has value for himself. Which wouldn't normally be a criminal matter, but the laws are (correctly) stricter about doing this kind of thing with public funds.
- skissane 3y ago
  > So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws. Caltrain is a government agency – it is incorporated by its three member counties under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act, which enables two or more public agencies to agree to create a new jointly controlled agency, and delegate some of their powers to it. As such, do zoning laws actually apply to Caltrain? I don't know the answer to that question, but I wouldn't assume the answer is necessarily "Yes". Zoning laws are primarily targeted at private actors (private corporations and individuals) and government agencies are not always bound by them. It is true that the work these Caltrain employees were doing was not authorised by upper management, but they were making improvements to Caltrain property and using Caltrain funds to do so, so most likely they still legally count as acts of Caltrain.
- mcmcmc 3y ago
  No, the crime is still embezzlement. It does not matter what they were intended for if they were constructed with public funds taken without approval.
prmoustache 3y ago
Public got in exchange well rested worker closer to their place of work, and thus probably more efficient because of that. How is that worse than the management having too much space in their office than needed or leather covered office chair?

londons_explore 3y ago

Plenty of employers build apartments for their staff. For example a little bed and kitchen so the on-site security guard can sleep overnight but still be on site. Many jobs require a human nearby all the time, but there is no need for them to be actively working. If someone else was on duty at that site next week, then that person would be staying in the apartment. I suspect that is what these were. So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws.

yuliyp 3y ago
> I suspect that is what these were. This is not the case. They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators.
- skissane 3y ago
  > They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators But now the employer knows about it, they should be able to make these facilities available to any of their employees or contractors who might be able to use them, in a way which could benefit the employer. For example, if someone has to work overtime in an emergency, allowing them to stay the night in one of these apartments could allow them to save commuting time and be better rested for the next day, which could improve performance (and reduce safety risks due to tiredness). Or, if someone needs to be rostered on-call to respond to unexpected events, having them stay in one of these apartments may improve their response time if they are called in
  - infecto 3y ago
    The hurdles to get over to reach this logic path is amazing. They used employers funds without approval to build something that benefited themselves. Sure, it happened on employer property but without any type of approval. That is theft, let us not try to come up with complicated explanations to say its not theft.
  - yuliyp 3y ago
    This is the classic "oh I was only borrowing it / gonna give that back" excuse of thieves who got caught with new window dressing.
dmurray 3y ago
I can't imagine this would violate zoning laws if the employer did it and declared it it as a temporary structure for construction staff. And the expense wouldn't have raised an eyebrow for the agency reviewing the construction contract. Maybe some permitting laws - should someone have signed off on the kitchenette being properly vented, etc. This is an employee slacking off to build a side project that will be owned by to the company, but mostly has value for himself. Which wouldn't normally be a criminal matter, but the laws are (correctly) stricter about doing this kind of thing with public funds.
skissane 3y ago
> So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws. Caltrain is a government agency – it is incorporated by its three member counties under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act, which enables two or more public agencies to agree to create a new jointly controlled agency, and delegate some of their powers to it. As such, do zoning laws actually apply to Caltrain? I don't know the answer to that question, but I wouldn't assume the answer is necessarily "Yes". Zoning laws are primarily targeted at private actors (private corporations and individuals) and government agencies are not always bound by them. It is true that the work these Caltrain employees were doing was not authorised by upper management, but they were making improvements to Caltrain property and using Caltrain funds to do so, so most likely they still legally count as acts of Caltrain.
mcmcmc 3y ago
No, the crime is still embezzlement. It does not matter what they were intended for if they were constructed with public funds taken without approval.

prmoustache 3y ago

Public got in exchange well rested worker closer to their place of work, and thus probably more efficient because of that. How is that worse than the management having too much space in their office than needed or leather covered office chair?