A Response To Eatmisery

Background info: I came across this comment tonight, from one of my longest-time readers, Eatmisery. She's a blogger I respect, and a fellow Chicagoan as well, and I take her words seriously because, for the most part, she's generally on the mark with what she says. In this case, though I understand her thinking, I felt I had to reply in such a way that I could, hopefully, show how "this time is different". Which makes even me think: bleargh.

Her comment is below; my reply follows afterward.

eatmisery said...

I'm betting that you're the one who actually leaves when the lease is up, not them. They'll just latch onto you wherever you go and you'll let them because you're so kind. The only way to get rid of them is to break off contact completely, which includes changing your cell phone number and moving. As long as they can reach you, they've got you right where they want you...every single time.

This is very sad. I feel for you, Gladys. You're the only one who can make the changes you need happen.

Miz...I can completely understand why you would expect that to be the outcome (I leave, they stay in the apt.) but in this case, I'm going to have to say I don't think that's likely. See, in the past, when I've thought about what to do about this situation--at whatever stage the situation was in--I was always worrying about two things at once: one, my own best interests; and two, everyone else's welfare/needs/opinion of me. And that, of course, is where they've got me in the past--as I'm trying to be nice to everyone and take care of everyone, one person gets left out of the equation.

In making THIS decision, however, my process was dominated largely by hard, cold realities: my goals for myself, the ways in which staying in this apartment benefits me, and the ways in which moving to a bigger place with them would actually move me farther AWAY from my goals. When I look at my goals, I don't mind standing still; it's moving backwards that I won't accept, not anymore.

In making this decision, I assumed three options; there are probably more, but I really haven't got any patience with dithering at this late date. So the options I considered were:

a)I stay in my current apartment, while Tim and Squeaky leave;
b)I stay in my current apartment; Tim and Squeaky also stay, and the baby joins us;
c)The three of us move to a larger apartment in preparation for the baby.

I have chosen Option A. Option B is a non-starter on several levels; foremost among them is, as I have explained to Tim, that there is no possible way that another human being, no matter how small, can be added to the population of this apartment without severing the final thread in the fabric of civility here, a fabric which is already paper-thin and strained most exceedingly. Especially in light of recent developments, this apartment is already a ticking time-bomb--when Squeaky figures out that not only did Tim mean what he said about continuing their relationship only in a platonic state, and only for the benefit of the baby--when she discovers that not only did he mean it, but that he has already begun to behave as though it were an accomplished fact--well, put it this way: I fully expect that the police will need to be involved. Squeaky is absolutely certain at the core of her being that not only is Tim secretly thrilled about the baby, but that beneath the surface, he is avidly preparing for their life together, complete with Disney-princess ending and a future devoid of strife. Some of this may be excused by her gravid state, perhaps, but most of it, I believe, is just the magical thinking of a very lonely child who really never grew up. When Squeaky is forced to face reality, there will be no peace for anyone unfortunate enough to be living with her at that time. And even if that day never comes, the fact remains: There is absolutely no room in this apartment for all the accoutrements that go with a baby. It's not a question of making room; the hard truth is, there is no room to be made. Therefore, even if I wanted them and the baby to stay, Option B would not be a possibility.

This leaves Option A and Option C. I will tell you that for the last few weeks of winter and the greater part of spring, Option C was actually my preferred option--to the point that we had discussed it among the three of us, had defined possible locations and price ranges, and had scouted out some preliminary rental advertisements. In considering the plans, I had thought long and hard about what I wanted. I wanted, first and foremost, to get out of Hyde Park. I wanted to move to the North Side, around Logan Square or Humboldt Park--somewhere with coffee shops and grocery stores and bars, someplace more dynamic than here. I also wanted more space; given my choice, I wanted a second bedroom where I could keep all my art supplies, where I could work on complex projects without feline assistance. I was even willing, since I was to be the main beneficiary of the increase in space, to take a greater share of the financial responsibility; I told Tim and Squeaky that instead of each of us paying 1/3, I would consider them as a unit, and split the rent 50-50.

And then I thought about it for a while longer.

First of all: My lease ends at the end of October--four months from now. Taking things by a general estimate, let's say rent would be $1500 for a three-bedroom apartment. Most leases involve a security deposit equal to one month's rent, along with payment for the first month due upon move-in. Therefore, on November first, we would currently need to come up with $3000, plus moving expenses. Moving expenses would be considerable, as my furnishings have long ago expanded beyond the "U-Haul and a couple of guy friends" status; when I moved in here from Casa De Gladys, the movers' bill was nearly $2000. Figuring that half the stuff got moved to Mom's, let's say a move from here would cost, say, $900. This means that I would have to come up with $900 (movers) plus $750 (my half of the security deposit) plus $750 (my half of the first month's rent). This means I would need to save $600/month over the next four months, which is largely outside the realm of MY possibility--to say nothing of the $375/month which THEY would have to save. Between the two of them, they don't even MAKE $375 a month! So realistically, I would end up paying the whole shebang--and there's no way in hell I could amass an extra four grand by Halloween. Then, too, assuming their joblessness continues (which I have no reason to doubt!)I would then end up paying more than twice my current rent, once utilities and the like are factored in. And I would want to do this WHY? For WHAT reason?

No, Miz, this isn't going to become a squishy, cuddly, world-saving expedition. I realize it HAS been so far, but until now, there hasn't been a concrete, calculable argument AGAINST it on which to hang my hat...well, now I've got one. So far, there was nothing anyone could physically POINT to and say "Do you see what you're LOSING by helping these two?"--or if there was, I could always say "But I can afford to give it, so I'm okay with it." Well, I am NOT okay with losing four grand before Thanksgiving, and I'm NOT okay with the prospect of losing an extra $600-ish per month afterwards because "our" apartment has become "my" financial albatross. So Option C is right out.

This leaves Option A: I stay here, they leave. Again: there is no way that three other people can stay here, even if--ESPECIALLY if--one is a newborn baby. If the baby can't stay, obviously Squeaky can't stay...besides which, I doubt she'll even WANT to, once Tim explains in detail what he's been up to lately. I'm sure the truth will come out, and as I said: I'm pretty sure the police will be involved whenever THAT happens. So there's a possibility that all three will have to go, regardless of ANYONE's wishes.

And while I wouldn't mind if Tim stayed, there are three factors which argue against his continued tenancy. One, which I've heard reflected to me more than once: letting him stay here ALSO allows him to continue his inertia. As long as he has a roof over his head, and can bum a beer and a cigarette from somewhere, he's perfectly content to sleep til noon, then stay up all night flirting with girls on Facebook...which is, I realize, doing him no favors. Secondly, as long as HE's here, there's always the possibility that Squeaky could pull the "you don't want your child and her mother to be HOMELESS, do you? Ask Gladys if we can stay...It'll just be for a couple of nights..." And we've ALL seen how well THAT has turned out in the past.

The third thing, I realize, could (amd probably will) be construed as a case of "out of the frying pan, into the sulfurous, reeking, magma-bubbling mouth of the active volcano" but I don't believe it will: as long as Tim is here, I need to keep CR at a reasonable distance. I'm tired of their feud, and I'm tired of getting a skunk-eye when the caller ID shows his number. I would like, perhaps, even to be able to have CR come over once in a while for a pizza, or to let him use the computer for job-hunting if he needs it, or whatever. (The jury is cautioned to withhold further commentary re: the nature of activities encompassed by "whatever".) In short, I would like my place back, AS mine, where I can do anything I choose to do without having to hasten to change my actions to compensate for someone else's long-ago fights.

Since this post is mercilessly long (AGAIN), I want to end by saying this: I don't mean to sound defensive or bitchy in any way (ESPECIALLY not to eatmisery; she's one of my favorite Chicago bloggers!) And I do understand everyone's concerns about me; I've put my foot down so many times re:Tim & Squeak in this blog, it's starting to get a dent in the floor. But in all seriousness, I have taken these concerns seriously, and I appreciate that you all care enough to speak your minds. Thank you for that; it's easier, sometimes, to see your flaws when other people can point out your positives too, and when they mention them in a concerned and compassionate way.