Sell Apartments, Jones Told by City Attorney

San Diego City Councilman William Jones must sell a four-unit apartment complex because his ownership constitutes a conflict of interest, according to an opinion by the city attorney.

The complex was purchased by Jones as an investment. The opinion released Wednesday by the city attorney said Jones’ ownership conflicts with state redevelopment law.

The city attorney’s office also warned Jones that until he sells the property, he must refrain from voting on any redevelopment proposals targeted for the portion of his district west of Interstate 15--an area in which the apartments are located.

In a prepared statement, Jones said Wednesday he will sell the property “as soon as practical,” but that finding a buyer wouldn’t be easy.

The ruling is the latest hitch in the 4th District councilman’s ownership of the rental property at 4055 L St.

The Times reported last year that Jones purchased the property for $150,000 in July with a 100% loan from Great American First Savings Bank. Although Jones said he offered to put 20% down, bank officials countered with the 100% loan because the property was bound up in bankruptcy proceedings.

Jones’ first hitch came after San Diego Housing Commission officials learned that two of the councilman’s tenants were receiving federal rent subsidies administered through the housing agency. An attorney for the Housing Commission said that arrangement was a conflict of interest under federal housing regulations.

Jones paid back about $1,000 in subsidies, and he asked that future payments be discontinued.

The city attorney’s opinion issued Wednesday said Jones had also run afoul of a section in the state’s redevelopment law. The apartments are located in a redevelopment area he helped create as a public official. The law forbids anyone who approves plans for a redevelopment area from acquiring “interest in any property included within a project area within the community.”

City records show that Jones joined in a unanimous council vote on July 23, 1985, to redraw the boundaries of the proposed Dells-Imperial Redevelopment Area to include most of his district south of California 94, west of Interstate 15 and north of Interstate 5.

A year later, he purchased the apartments within that area. There have been no council votes on the Dells-Imperial area since then, however.

“It is our advice to you that you proceed to take steps to divest your interest in the L Street property as soon as practicable and that, until you do, you do not participate in any Agency actions which might be brought forward with respect to the Dells-Imperial Redevelopment Project Area,” wrote Assistant City Atty. Curtis M. Fitzpatrick.

The opinion noted that the city attorney’s office “inadvertently” failed to tell Jones about the state redevelopment law earlier. In a March, 1986, memo, Jones asked for advice on certain district votes because he intended to buy another piece of property in his district.

Jones said in his statement Wednesday that he will follow the city attorney’s advice and sell the property. “However, I do not expect this to be easy. Many responsible investors are discouraged by the concentration of gang members and drug users in the neighborhood as well as by the neighborhood’s deteriorating condition,” Jones wrote.

“I want to sell the property to someone who I can be assured will maintain the property in a manner which will inspire other property owners in the neighborhood to improve their property and help save the neighborhood,” he wrote. “If this happens, perhaps, the personal inconvenience I have suffered will have been worth it.”