Making A Choice, Part Six

So, the “divorce” was complete between O.L.D. and N.E.W., and everyone now knew that they were indeed two separate companies, although George had always acted like he was really the owner of both. (There’s that galloping ego!) The purely figurehead president of N.E.W. resigned, as she was an employee of O.L.D. and, to be quite honest, I don’t know who was made president; perhaps Dan gave his wife the title. As the former president told me, she was stunned by the developments, as she always thought that George was the real owner of N.E.W. In reality, N.E.W. was only a one-person management company, Dan! It had no office or phone number, as previously, O.L.D.’s address and phone number were used. Eventually, Dan used his home phone number and home address for N.E.W.

In spite of all of the crap going on behind-the-scenes, N.E.W. got a letter of “commendation” from the local HUD director. Remember, the government was insuring the loan on the property through HUD, and periodic inspections were required to verify that all was in order, and that the management was performing its duties properly. Each month, HUD also received financial reports for the property. While the apartment building was part of a larger complex, HUD was only insuring the apartment building, and was in no way involved with the rest of the non-residential complex. When we got this “commendation,” it was after an inspection by the HUD director himself, not someone down the chain of command.

Laying the commendation aside, three main issues plagued the situation: one, “good,” but not “great” occupancy numbers, which affected two, “good,” but not “great” profits,* and three, Dan’s relationship with the owners and the project in general. Dan wasn't "political" enough. He seemed NOT to understand how he needed to relate to and interact with the owners of the building, especially once he lost the support services of O.L.D. There were egos involved here, and Dan just didn't get it, that you have to pay a certain amount of "homage" to the powers that be. You don't have to kiss their...ah...well...below the belt, but you do have to show that you're interested and involved. The owners' offices were right in the apartment building, but Dan very rarely ever went up to them. Just stopping in to say, "Hello," would have helped, but in reality, Dan didn't much care for the owners, and it showed. That's not to say that I loved them either, as I thought they were a bunch of bunglers who'd gotten themselves into a real mess with all of the debts they had taken on, and with the unrealistic income forecasts they had made. Folks, any time you mortgage virtually everything you have, and then you need about 100% occupancy, or 100% of anything, to pay your debts, you've got problems, all of your own making! (Well, George's development company has to bear some responsibility, too. You can't call yourself a responsible developer and either recommend or allow such nonsense to go on.)

Now back to Dan. He used poor judgment about some decisions he made, perhaps influenced by his own dislike of the owners. (He should have loved them after they allowed him to put himself and his wife on an insurance plan being paid for by the building!) For instance, he kept raising wages, which as an employee I liked, but it wasn't realistic, given the fact that the building's income was stagnant, and that there was no way to recover those costs. Now, you're probably thinking, "That blasted Randy is always popping off about poor wages and working people and such, and here's a guy upping his and the other employees' pay, and he's criticizing him." That's true, but I also understand that businesses have to make money. I'm not that far out there. Plus eventually, in self interest, I could see what was going to happen; the owners would look elsewhere for a management company. So keep giving me raises, and lose my job, or give me an occasional raise and keep my job? And yes, if the building had been raking it in, I'd say the profits should have been shared to some degree in salary increases. With competition from the student dormitory and our own occupancy less than great, we couldn't raise rents, even a little, to recover ANY costs, let alone regular raises and the yearly increase in health insurance costs. In what turned out to be our last year at the building, I finally convinced Dan to at least scale back the wage increases that he'd put into the budget, just to show that he was trying to rein in expenses.

Eventually, the owners began experiencing serious financial problems with the entire complex. Several of their employees were let go, some having been with them for 25 and 30 years!!! The City was complaining that the loan they owed to them was actually escalating, as the owners couldn't even pay enough to cover the interest costs. It was VERY UGLY! Not one of their income assumptions proved to be correct. (How did Gomer Pyle say that? "Surprise! Surprise!") They began to make noises that they would look for another management company to get the occupancy up nearer 100%. Just to show how poor the communication was between the owners and Dan, the owner's representative came to me and told me to tell Dan that they were thinking of changing management companies. Eventually, they called, guess who? George. Whether George put the idea into their heads, I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me. With about three months left on N.E.W.'s contract with the owners, they informed Dan by letter that his contract would not be renewed.

* The owners had a large regular mortgage payment and had taken out another loan through the City, and it was to be paid back according to a percentage of profits from the apartment building. With the owners leveraged up to their necks, they essentially needed the building to be 100% occupied, year round, to be able to pay down the loan to the City in a timely manner. Remember, this was primarily student housing, and keeping it anywhere near “full” during the summer months was next to impossible, and even during the regular school year, many college students stayed in the nearby dorm, run by the university. Next, "Part Seven," the final part..... 

Word History:
Listen-This goes back to the Indo European base "klu/kleu," which had to do with "hearing." Lithuanian, an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree, has "klausau," meaning "to hear." Some linguists feel that Lithuanian is the modern language that is closest to ancient Indo European, as they believe it has changed the least over the centuries. Greek, another relative of English further down the line, has "klyo," also meaning "to hear," and Latin, another relative, had "cluere," meaning "for a person to hear themselves called, or be spoken of." Anyway, from the Indo European base word, Old Germanic developed a verb something like, "khlusnojan" and/or "khlusinon," but it is possible that the first was an older form and the other came a bit later. My "guess" is, the "k" sound was NOT prominent in the Germanic pronunciation of the word and was more aspirated, thus it is often rendered with an "h" replacing "k." The developing Germanic dialects had various forms of the word and Old High German had "hlosen," which meant "to listen" and in Old English is was "hlysnan," both forms meaning "to listen." Both modern English and modern German have altered the spelling of their respective words, with German having "lauschen" and, of course, English with "listen." The beginning "h" sound undoubtedly blended in with the "L" in both languages. So why do we have a "t" in the spelling? From the same Old Germanic verb (see above) was derived a noun "khlustiz," which developed into Old English "list," (not the kind for your groceries), which meant/means "to listen," and the word is still around in modern English, but it is certainly archaic. Linguists feel that "list" influenced the spelling of "lissen," I mean "listen." Notice that close relative German does not contain a "t" in the spelling, but another close English relative, Dutch, has "luisteren." Ah, there's that "t!"