Why Sinanyan and not Drayman?

PoliticsElectionsInterior PolicyPublic HousingHousing and Urban Planning

On April 5, Roberta Medford wrote candidate Zareh J. Sinanyan’s first act on the City Council should be “either an unequivocal and verifiable denial that the controversial online postings are his, or a sincere and contrite apology for them.”

Why didn’t Medford and her friends go before the City Council or a candidate forum to speak about John Drayman and his condo makeover, with no building permits, performed by subcontractors of Advanced Development and Investments, a public housing company currently under investigation? From the subcontractors of ADI, Drayman, Quintero, Najarian and Friedman all received thousands of dollars as reported in the Los Angeles Times/ Glendale News-Press in 2009-2010. Then our council members approved more than $30 million in public housing projects for ADI.

Neighborhood Services manager and former council candidate Sam Engle said at a recent candidate forum that he was told by the previous city manager and previous city attorney to say nothing to the public about Drayman’s condo. So why didn’t Medford and her friends write letters in the News-Press or question Engle?

Medford’s letter dated Feb. 13, “Not a fan of what Mohill stands for,” stated that merchants should not post signs of Mike Mohill in their store windows, as it would turn customers off and hurt their businesses. Yet, she had no problems when John Drayman posted his political signs in store windows or incumbent candidate Friedman and her supporters placed her signs in those same storefronts.

Friedman emailed her supporters on April 4 with a colorful picture of her hand on Medford’s shoulder and a big smile from supporter Medford.

I find it very interesting that Medford has selective memory when she wants to attack someone she feels is not worthy of her values.

Mike Mohill
Glendale

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Comments
Loading