Slum Removal Follows Twisted Path : Housing: Effort to move farm workers from run-down Oxnard trailer park has been marred by claims of corruption, sweetheart deals and betrayal.

What began two years ago as a city effort to move farm workers out of an Oxnard slum may soon end with the $2.6-million purchase of a low-income housing parcel--but the torturous route to closing the deal has been littered with disputed claims of improper behavior by officials, sweetheart deals and betrayal.

After a state inspection of the Oxnard Mobilehome Lodge found hundreds of health and safety violations in 1991, city officials pledged to relocate 1,100 poor residents, packed eight per trailer beneath worn electrical lines in one of Ventura County’s densest, most hazardous enclaves.

But over the last two years, the trailer park relocation has twice lurched forward and stalled--first because of homeowner opposition and then because of protracted negotiations marred by back-room City Council disputes and a landowner’s accusation that one councilman made inappropriate requests of him.

Officials say they think they have finally struck a deal with Donald T. Kojima--a financially troubled real estate speculator who is friendly with public officials--to buy 20 acres of farmland near St. John’s Regional Medical Center for housing and a 14-acre park and school site from him for $4.78 million.

But it is a deal that council members Andres Herrera and Tom Holden say should have closed months ago had city negotiators not lost their way. And if Councilman Michael Plisky had not engaged in what was essentially a back-room filibuster to stop it, Herrera said.

“Government should not work this way,” Herrera said last week. “This should have been a very simple business deal.”

Instead, it languished as Plisky publicly declared in February that the pending purchase of Kojima’s parkland was the worst city deal he had ever seen. In private council sessions he argued that the city should let Kojima declare bankruptcy, then buy the park and housing parcels more cheaply.

“There was an unrelenting antagonism by Plisky on the Kojima project . . . that was just too personal,” Herrera said. “We were really getting into it in the back room. The discussions were heated.”

Kojima now charges that Plisky made inappropriate requests related to his land in 1992, then engaged in a personal vendetta to try to kill the sales when the landowner refused to cooperate. “I was shocked” by the requests, Kojima said in an interview.

“I just think some unreasonable requests were made of me (by Plisky) . . . in regards to our land,” said Kojima, who refused to elaborate. “My dealings with everybody else have always been aboveboard. I’ve never encountered anything inappropriate from any of the other council members.”

Others confirm that Plisky--following a controversial practice he has employed with other developers--upset Kojima by referring him to political consultant and lobbyist Donald A. Gunn after Kojima sought Plisky’s help in land-use matters.

Kojima would not comment on the referral or what one source said was Gunn’s proposed $35,000 fee except to say, “I don’t want to get into Gunn or any of that stuff. My situation is real delicate.”

Plisky acknowledges referring Kojima to lobbyist Gunn--who had been Plisky’s campaign manager for a decade--after Kojima came to him.

“He needed help with the planning process and he asked me who would I recommend. And I believe I told him Don Gunn,” Plisky said. “That was the end of it.

“I did not make any improper requests,” he added. “I don’t think he encountered anything inappropriate from me.”

Plisky said he opposed purchase of Kojima’s parkland only because the city had agreed to advance nearly half the $780,000 price to pay off the landowner’s bad debts and stop foreclosure proceedings. Kojima could have declared bankruptcy and left the city standing in line for repayment, Plisky said. Other city officials said Kojima’s equity in the land covered any potential loss.

“I never had anything against Kojima, and I still don’t,” Plisky said. “I just didn’t like the (parkland) deal, and I still don’t. Even Herrera is smart enough to understand that.”

Plisky noted that earlier this year he voted for a change in the city’s northeast area plan that allows houses on Kojima’s land and made it more valuable. And--after a meeting with Kojima last weekend--the councilman said he now supports city purchase of both Kojima parcels.

Gunn said Friday that it would be unethical for him to talk about discussions with any potential client, and he declined comment about any fee he might have requested of Kojima. But he added: “If Kojima is making this type of statement, I personally just think it shows that desperate people say and do desperate things.”

As tensions about the Kojima deal have played out behind the scenes, allegations that the City Council was bailing Kojima out of a bad land investment were circulated by several opponents, beginning last summer.

And after Kojima was the host of Holden’s 40th birthday party at the exclusive Tower Club atop an Oxnard bank building in late March, Holden’s relationship with the businessman became an issue, because the council had only recently approved $360,000 in advance payments to Kojima and because two of his land deals were still pending.

Holden said he sees no conflict of interest.

Kojima is a friend with whom he sometimes has dinner, Holden said. Kojima was host of the councilman’s birthday party only in the sense that his membership gained the party’s access to the club, the councilman said. Holden’s family paid for the surprise celebration, he added.

“I think it’s about time we had people (on the council) who keep their relationships out in the public rather than in the back room,” Holden said. “To separate social from political, that’s not a problem for me. I have personal relationships with many people in this city. I don’t use my position to close down my relationships.”

Meanwhile, the city’s efforts to move farm workers out of their tiny, tattered trailers--away from 50-year-old electrical lines and water pipes that often rupture--had been further slowed by maneuvering by Kojima and two low-cost housing firms to grab a share of the lucrative, 115-home construction contract for the Kojima parcel, city officials said.

And as talks have dragged on, the new owner of the ramshackle trailer park decided that she would not close it after all, but instead invest $300,000 to meet minimum health and safety standards.

So city officials now say trailer park residents may have to qualify for the new housing project just like anyone else, even though two dozen park residents trained under a city grant for the last year to run their own housing corporation.

Officials also acknowledge that the low-income housing they want to build--preferably manufactured single-family dwellings--will cost $90,000 to $100,000, which may be too much for most trailer park residents to afford, even with government subsidies.

To Luis Teran, who first petitioned the City Council to improve conditions at his shabby trailer park 12 years ago, such news shatters a dream.

“I am an American,” said the 61-year-old retired celery picker who heads the trailer park’s resident council. “I want to be able to own my own home. That’s my dream.”

Attorney Eileen McCarthy of California Rural Legal Assistance in Oxnard said the city’s new position represents a breach of trust by officials who have promised much but delivered nothing.

“This is beyond betrayal,” she said. “They just don’t want to put that much money into housing for farm workers.”