Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

USAIsAUcountry t1_jczzat0 wrote

I would explore what is intended to fall under the mineral rights, yes. If I discovered I had a legitimate claim then yes, I would go to court. What I wouldn't do is go to court several times over 5 years after being shut down arguing over semantics to try squeeze myself in there.

−39

DavoTB t1_jczx2r9 wrote

The Best stores shown in the link were among the most provocative commercial designs around at the time. The company had a number of stores in the mid-Atlantic area, including several in Northern Virginia where I was growing up. Most were stores built in existing spaces, with no particular special design.

I worked at one store in the late 70’s/early 80’s, and it was a somewhat smaller-sized location, but still had the unique design of a large showroom with sample items on the first (ground-floor) level and the warehouse and stock on the upper floor. Most items were “ordered” from the service desk and paid for at checkout stations. Wait-time was generally less than five to ten minutes, unless it was a particularly busy time of year.

Some sections of the store were called “self-service,” where customers could pick up an item and buy it immediately, like sporting goods, hardware, jewelry, the audio section (excluding items like large TV sets).

Upon opening some of the unique stores, the local managers would promote the new locations, sometimes making trips to visit those locations. Many of my colleagues/co-workers felt the buildings were too “radical” or “impractical.”

3

codyt321 t1_jcztb1m wrote

You're telling me you wouldn't? If you had the rights to what was in the ground, and what they dug up out of the ground was worth millions of dollars. You would just walk away?

47

USAIsAUcountry t1_jczszlo wrote

That's why I used the quotation marks. I just couldn't find a better term for it and was too lazy to figure it out. I just meant that anyone with a sliver of power to make a claim suddenly crawling out of the woodworks to do some Avatar levels of Lawbending. Vultures would perhaps have been a better term for it.

−44

codyt321 t1_jczs0ol wrote

Did we read the same thing? The other party in the suit were the former landowners who still had the mineral rights. Not a company and not the state trying to claim ownership.

Just kind of seems like a normal court case. Complicated and nuanced the more you look into it.

74

USAIsAUcountry t1_jcznewo wrote

I'm just happy to see that "the powers that be" didn't manage to completely fuck the landowner out of a payday, despite what appears to have been a lengthy and genuine effort at doing exactly that. The fuck's wrong with people...

110

Sandstorm400 OP t1_jczmebp wrote

3