National City Councilman Violated Law : Property: The city attorney says Councilman Van Deventer violated state law by buying and holding property in city redevelopment areas.

National City Councilman Jess E. Van Deventer violated state laws that prohibit council members from buying property in redevelopment areas, City Atty. George Eiser said Monday.

Furthermore, Van Deventer was told in 1986 that he was in “technical” violation of the state’s conflict-of-interest law as it applies to redevelopment areas and was advised to get rid of the controversial properties, Eiser added. In 1987, Van Deventer told him that he had disposed of the properties, Eiser said.

But Van Deventer never rid himself of the downtown lots. Instead, the properties were put in the name of Pacific Professionals Enterprises Inc.--the San Diego accounting firm that handled his finances for about 10 years--while he continued to own the lots, Van Deventer acknowledged Wednesday.

Last week, Van Deventer released amended economic disclosure statements he had filed for 1981-88 and revealed that in 1988 he failed to report two-thirds of his property holdings and 14 other sources of income. Of the eight additional properties that he listed in his amended 1988 statement, seven are in the National City Redevelopment Area.

The redevelopment boundaries were drawn in 1981, while Van Deventer was in his first council term. The newly listed properties owned by Van Deventer in the redevelopment area were purchased from 1981 to 1988.

“There’s a technical violation of the redevelopment laws that says a councilman can’t obtain properties in the (redevelopment) area once the boundaries are drawn,” Eiser said. The law’s intent is to prevent council members from voting on issues that could affect their own pocketbooks.

He added that the violations are misdemeanors and any charges would have to be filed by the district attorney’s office. District attorney spokeswoman Linda Miller said that a decision on whether to file charges against Van Deventer has not been made.

Eiser said that he has again advised Van Deventer to get rid of the properties in question.

“He told me in 1987 that he had disposed of the properties and I assumed that he had,” Eiser said. “It wasn’t until a couple of days before (last week’s) council meeting that I learned that he still owned them.”

Van Deventer announced at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting that his previous economic disclosures “were deficient,” and he said he had filed amended statements with the city clerk’s office and the Fair Political Practices Commission in Sacramento.

In a telephone interview, Van Deventer admitted Wednesday that he was breaking the law but blamed his situation on Jerry Segawa, owner of Pacific Professionals and his former adviser. Van Deventer also acknowledged that Eiser had counseled him in 1986 to dispose of the properties and he admitted putting them in the name of Pacific Professionals instead.

“I listened to my adviser (Segawa) and did what he recommended. He recommended transferring the properties to the name of Pacific Professionals,” Van Deventer said.

When asked if he was still the real owner of the properties when they were transferred to the Pacific Professionals, Van Deventer said:

“Technically, yes. But I was under the assumption that we (he and his wife, Sharon) didn’t own them. It’s the same thing that I told you before. I listened to my adviser and did what he recommended.”

Segawa, who was fired by Van Deventer two weeks ago, could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Michael Adkins, said Friday that Segawa would not comment on his relationship with Van Deventer.

As a result of his conflict of interest, Van Deventer will have to abstain from voting on all redevelopment matters, Eiser said.

“The only logical solution is for him to dispose of the properties,” Eiser said.

In the past, Van Deventer “has conscientiously” abstained from voting on issues that affect other properties that he owns, Eiser added.

Although Van Deventer broke the law by purchasing property in the redevelopment area, there is no statute that prevents him from voting on redevelopment projects simply because he owns land in the redevelopment area, Eiser said.

“But the feeling is that he has to distance himself as much as possible from voting on items or projects that involve the redevelopment agency,” said Eiser.

National City Council members double as the Community Development Commission, the city’s redevelopment agency.

Van Deventer said that he recently hired a group of attorneys to advise him on what to do with the lots he owns.

“We’re looking at different options. The attorneys I’ve hired are doing that. They’re looking at everything from setting up blind trusts to disposing of them all together,” Van Deventer said.

He has repeatedly insisted that he and the properties he owns have not profited financially from his previous votes on redevelopment matters.

“I’ve opened my books to everyone because I’ve got to live with myself. I think it’s important to be above and beyond question. I got myself in this position, and I’ve got to get these things solved. I’m very concerned that the general public should know that they haven’t been hurt by anything that I’ve voted on,” said Van Deventer.

FPPC officials said they received Van Deventer’s amended statements on Friday and are still studying them.