Tenant-Architect’s License in Possible Jeopardy Over Illegal Construction Boondoggle

State Senator Tom Duane’s office—and in particular his aid Jared Chausow— was very helpful in getting the Department of Buildings (DOB) to issue the Stop Work Order halting the illegal construction in the building (including Bob Dylan’s room), and for that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.  As Duane stated in a recent Chelsea Now article, the crux of the matter is whether or not a Certificate of No Harassment  (CONH) is required for major construction work—and that’s for the DOB to decide.  
             However, the DOB can’t do its job properly if it doesn’t have the correct information in front of it, and that’s what happened in this case: the DOB granted a permit based on false information.  Andrew Tilley, as general manager of the hotel, is ultimately responsible for guaranteeing the legality of any work that goes on here, but it wasn’t him who falsified the permit application, since the document was submitted to the DOB before his tenure began. 
    So who falsified the Permit application, saying that the Chelsea is not an SRO? The obvious place to start is with the people who signed it: minority shareholder David Elder, representing the ownership of the hotel, and an architect who also happens to be a tenant of the hotel.  Now if you’ve been following this blog then you know that we don’t have much good to say about Elder, who is living at the hotel rent free and seems to be trying to make a living by bilking old men out of their money and property (ie.
Stanley Bard and Piri Thomas).  We would expect as much from Elder. 
            But what of the Tenant-Architect, a person well-liked and respected around the hotel, apparently an ethical person as well?  Aside from the potential damage to his fellow tenants, we find it hard to believe that he would knowingly endanger his livelihood—risking his architectural license, as well as his right to sign off on permits of this sort—for such a half-assed boondoggle of a job.   Admittedly, it may be hard for people to feel sympathy for somebody who was hired as  an expert to sign off on the construction permit, but we have reason to believe that certain lies were told to him, and certain promises made, that may have influenced his judgment in this matter.
            Still, it will be difficult for us to prove that this tenant-architect was unknowingly used to commit what is coming to look increasingly like fraud.  We can only urge him to step forward and let his story be told, before he’s used as a scapegoat in this case.