I was recently invited to a meeting of Renton airport users who have lost confidence in Renton’s airport management. They are considering forming an airport tenants union, to organize and push back on breath-taking rent increases. One airport business owner reports that the city has asked him to sign onto a 120 percent rent increase, 12 times bigger than what our state legislature said was the maximum a residential landlord could ever increase rent in a single year. Some tenants have said they have been given surprise retroactive rent increases, in which management said they forgot to raise the rent months earlier, and now demand tens of thousands in back rent– similarly to the billing failure that triggered the Landing Gear Works to ultimately move out.
Two years ago many small plane owners in Renton were issued surprise rent increases of 42 – 74%, making their tie-downs and hangars more costly than those at Boeing Field (which has much more infrastructure including two runways).
Aerodyne Aviation, a Renton pioneering firm in aviation development and the one-time home of airport namesake Clayton Scott, is being pushed from Renton Airport over a rent dispute. This new sign was going to be placed on their building, but it was never installed due to the disagreement.
In a recent blog post I described Renton Airport Management’s false “runway safety” explanation for pushing out Aerodyne Aviation, one of Renton’s oldest aviation research, design and maintenance centers. Today I’m describing Airport leadership’s similarly misleading messaging about the future of the Aerodyne Hangar. Airport property belongs to Renton taxpayers, and the public deserves an honest accounting of how it is being used to benefit our city.
Renton’s Airport management has declared Aerodyne’s Hangar so valuable that they want Aerodyne to pay more than three times the rent that Aerodyne paid for just their land lease last year. They say the Hangar and office complex, built by Aerodyne under their previous lease, has more than tripled the value of the property. But at the same time, paradoxically, the same Airport Management says it wants to tear down the hangar, suggesting it has no value.
This screenshot from a Renton public information video is an incorrect representation of Council-Mayor form of government. Previous Renton Councils would not have approved a video that made them falsely appear subordinate to the Mayor.
[At last night’s Committee of the Whole meeting, Council Members were trying to learn whether a lease had been extended to a new tenant in the City-owned Piazza building, and they were not getting a straight answer. Since Renton Council is responsible for leases, this was just the latest episode of Council having relinquished control of an important responsibility. This inspired me to write this blog post.]
Revised Code of Washington 35A.11.020 gives all of the City of Renton’s power to our City Council with these words:
“The legislative body of each code city shall have all powers possible for a city or town to have under the Constitution of this state, and not specifically denied to code cities by law.”
RCW 35A.12.100 lays out the Mayor’s administrative, executive and ceremonial duties, including these words “He or she shall report to the council concerning the affairs of the city and its financial and other needs, and shall make recommendations for council consideration and action.”
But while the Council has been granted all the power by the state, you would not know it by watching a Renton Council Meeting. And you won’t learn about the Council’s authority from the new public information video that Renton created and published two weeks ago.
Our current Mayor often refers to Renton’s government as a “Strong Mayor City,” potentially implying that the Mayor has authority over the Council. But the Council actually wields the power in Renton’s “Council-Mayor” form of government. “Strong mayor” is an informal insider term used to differentiate a mayor who provides daily management of city workers (in a Council-Mayor system) from a mayor with a more ceremonial role in a “Council-Manager” system.
The new video about Renton Council Meetings uses the “strong mayor” language, even though it does not show up in state law. Renton’s system is legally a “Council-Mayor” system, and the Council wields the city’s ultimate power.
The Renton City Council is a legislative body, not a department of the City that the Mayor runs. And the Council should not let their role be diminished.
This chart from the new video greatly diminishes the power and responsibilities of the City Council.
Every bullet in the screenshot above from the new City video is misleading.
The Council doesn’t just “approve” the city’s budget; they own the budget. They set priorities for the budget, review and refine draft budget documents, set tax rates and fees, and hold the Mayor and staff accountable to staying on budget.
They don’t just “pass”ordinances; they determine the need for ordinances, define them, review and debate drafts, decide on penalties for violating them, and then vote on them.
The Council doesn’t just “shape policies that align with the city’s goals,” they define the city’s goals.
Council also has many other authorities given to them by the Revised Code of Washington covering everything from zoning to delivering municipal services. For example, just half of one sentence of the code gives Council (not the Mayor) control of “the acquisition, sale, ownership, improvement, maintenance, protection, restoration, regulation, use, leasing, disposition, vacation, abandonment or beautification of public ways, real property of all kinds, waterways, structures, or any other improvement or use of real or personal property …”
By law, Council also has authority over the agenda and execution of every Council Meetings. The Council can alter the agenda and the rules at any time with a majority vote– the Mayor does not get a say in it.
These are, after all, City Council meetings. Our Mayor has all week to perform his administrative duties and talk with his constituents. But under the open public meetings act, Council Members can only discuss issues and take action in public meetings. That is why we have scheduled Council Meetings. The Mayor presides over the meetings as one of his administrative functions, since Council members are part-time, not because he is a boss over the Council.
In fact, the Mayor typically never gets to vote on anything. About once per year or so the Mayor might get a chance to vote to break a tie, but only if the issue does not involve any spending.
In rare 4-3 split Council decisions the Mayor theoretically has a veto power. But a single Councilmember switching sides can undo the Mayor’s veto, since it only takes five council members to overrides a veto. In 28 years I might have seen maybe one veto.
When I was on Council, we knew it was our meeting. It was a time to speak to each other about topics of concern to us, and a time to interact with constituents who had not received satisfaction from city staff or the Mayor.
A year ago Renton Council threw away their ability to provide speedy low-cost appeals of hearing examiner decisions, saying they preferred these matters go straight to King County Superior Court. Past Renton Councils knew this was an option, but always chose to hold onto appeal authority, as one of the many council powers to protect. This decision by the current Council reflects a broader pattern of the Council stepping away from authorities that past Councils deliberately protected.
Renton’s Council does a disservice to its residents by giving away its power. While we still pay for eight elected officials, we only get decisions from one of them– the Mayor. A single individual, even the mayor, will be wrong some of the time.
Council Members can begin to take back their power by asking questions of the Mayor, of staff, and of each other at council meetings. They should not stop asking questions until they fully understand all the implications of any decision they are making. And they should not shy from debating these issues with their colleagues during their council meetings. If the Mayor attempts to shut down the questions or debate, Council should use a “Point of Order” under Robert’s Rules, to remind the Mayor that Council is in charge of the agenda and the meeting. Any Councilmember can move to suspend the rules to give extra time or seek more data on an important issue, and if four other council members agree, the agenda will change. Past Council Members have been known to instruct the Mayor “go get us the data…. we’ll wait for it.”
Councilmembers should also study 35A.11.020 to remind themselves of the power they wield. Then they should publicly engage their council colleagues to use this power wisely and effectively to improve the quality of life for residents and businesses in Renton.
Art Jenkins holds a box full of envelopes containing 9-1-1 emergency call records for his condominium complex, at a meeting of “For a Better Renton” on September 4th.
Art Jenkins has become so frustrated with a lack of City of Renton action to enforce nuisance ordinances and state laws at his condo that he began a petition on August 13. He has already gathered 680 signatures. His Petition can be found here.
Mr. Jenkins’ situation raises red flags about whether Renton is adequately prepared to manage the inevitable conflicts that arise with higher levels of density, even as the city completes a city-wide rezone that allows fourplexes in nearly all of Renton’s single-family neighborhoods. His concerns also raise questions about city liability if anything tragic happens; just two weeks ago King County had to pay $21 million to a dog-attack victim after King County failed to address numerous code-compliance complaints.
I had a chance to meet with Mr.Jenkins at a recent meeting of the “For a Better Renton” organization, where he shared the details of his ten-year struggle to keep his condominium unit habitable in the midst of constant flooding from above, nearby drug crimes, firearm concerns, fights, noise, and other challenges that are beyond his control. He’s worked with his condo association as much as he could, even serving as a member of his HOA board, but most of these problems are beyond the condo board’s authority or ability to effect change.
He brought a heavy box of papers with him that document all the 911 calls to the vicinity of his condo unit, activity that far surpasses the number of calls that define a “Chronic Nuisance Premises” in Renton’s 1-3-3 Nuisance Code. The primary request of his petition, is that this Renton code be enforced. He’s also asking Renton to enforce the applicable state laws, and to coordinate with King County Health Department to ensure King County’s codes are met. Mr. Jenkins said he has reached out to King County directly regarding mold from the constant flooding and other health concerns he’s observed, but King County said they need the City of Renton to take the lead on resolving these concerns.
Mr. Jenkins came across as pleasant, sensible, patient, and compassionate, even as he described an odyssey that would literally drive many people from their homes. And though he has spent many thousands of dollars and countless hours mitigating the impacts and seeking assistance, he’s not looking to punish or seek retribution; he just wants the city to take actions that will allow him to peacefully live in his Renton home.
He’s encouraged that the petition has already gotten city attention, and a couple of Council Members have come out to see the situation for themselves. He’s hoping more elected officials will come out, and then take action on his concerns.
I encourage you to read Mr. Jenkins petition, and sign it (electronically) if you feel so inclined. I am one of the many hundreds of Renton residents that have signed it. If Renton is going to begin replacing single-family homes with fourplexes throughout our entire city, we’ll need nuisance code enforcement systems in place that can keep the peace and keep units habitable.
A Renton High School neighbor who’s home is threatened by eminent domain asked me if I could give background on why she received this postcard.
The postcard announces a public meeting that is part of the permit approval process for new large projects in the City of Renton. The code that applies can be found here.
Here is an excerpt:
“4-8-090 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS:
1. Purpose: A neighborhood meeting is an applicant-hosted forum intended to assist in producing applications that are responsive to neighborhood concerns, and to reduce the likelihood of delays and appeals. The City expects an applicant to take into consideration the reasonable concerns and recommendations of the neighbors and other interested persons when preparing an application. Neighborhood meetings are not City-sponsored and neither delegates any authority to the public nor reflects the City’s perspective on the merits of the project.”
The meeting will be held on August 6, at 6:00 PM, at Renton High School. The point of this meeting is to hear concerns and inputs from neighbors before formal permit process get underway. Neighbors can read the code to learn more about the expectations for the meeting. The relevant section is (A) 1-9.
This could be a lively and important meeting since many of the neighbors are having their homes forcibly taken. School Officials will have to ask something to this effect: “Tell us how you REALLY feel about us taking your homes by eminent domain for a baseball stadium? … Please avoid profanity if possible.”
Section 8 is a key paragraph:
“8. Consideration: The City shall consider as part of the development review process the concerns and issues raised by the neighbors and applicant at the neighborhood meeting, including any agreed-upon solutions or resolutions to outstanding issues or areas of contention. The City, however, shall not be bound in its decision-making by any agreements or understandings made between the neighbors and applicants. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to delegate design or project review decision-making authority to the participants in the public meeting.”
Bob Baker speaking to Renton City Council on March 3, 2025. His presentation can be found here.
In October 2017 a worried resident posted a social media warning for their community that a hot asphalt plant was proposed for Maple Valley Highway, just a couple hundred feet from the Cedar River. Bob Baker who lives nearby soon found himself joining a group of concerned citizens to stop the plant from being built at that location.
Mr. Baker is not an asphalt or soils expert by profession, but he is an avid reader and a quick study, and he soon began learning all he could about the potential impacts of the asphalt plant on the sensitive Cedar River Valley.
As he learned more through document searches and self-study, he began seeking out experts who specialize in the immediate and long-term effects of Asphalt Plants. He spoke with experts throughout the US, OSHA and even the UK to get the proper training on how these plants affect air, ground, water, human quality of life, fish and wildlife, plant life, and traffic. His ready-recall of these details is striking. Whether he’s telling you the specific carcinogenic contaminants in recycled asphalt or how much water is needed to extinguish an asphalt fire, he knows the names and numbers without looking at his notes.
My full bins await pickup along with others on my street, a day after our normal pickup. Like everyone else, I have no idea whether I should bring them back up my driveway. Since the green and blue bins normally gets picked up only every other week, I don’t want to miss the day the trucks finally come again. They gray one is getting ripe from food waste rotting in 80-90 degree temperatures.
The City of Renton has been reworking it’s website during the past year, and has become difficult (at least for now) to find full agenda packets for upcoming meetings and past meetings.
This section lists upcoming meetings. The live version can be found here, and includes clickable links to the detail agenda packets.This section lists recent meetings. The live version can be found here and includes clickable links that go to the agenda packets.
Staples receipt for costs Renton outsourced while supplying records to Superior Court; Logan Six applicants have been asked to pay this, even though it’s five times the published fee schedule.
The Renton Fee Schedule, approved by Renton City Council, is pretty clear. The City can charge residents 15 cents per page for printed or photocopied pages. The City Clerk can also waive these charges, and often does, for residents that have not used an excessive amount of photocopying or printing services in the past.
So why is the city charging 78 cents per page to Renton residents appealing the Logan Six project? The question has North Renton residents justifiably perturbed. They’ve been paying taxes to fund the Renton City Clerk’s office for decades, and now the first time they need copies of some city documents the city is gouging them. The City is not even using the photocopiers that taxpayers funded– they’re having the copies made at Staples, a retail store.
The high charge is five times the city’s published fee schedule, which is arguably illegal. But just as upsetting to North Renton residents, the usurious charge looks like an effort on the part of someone in the city to make it even more expensive and difficult for Superior Court to review this appeal. When the Council made the last-hour change to send appeals to superior court instead of hearing them themselves (claiming it was an improvement) they didn’t mention that the city would charge 78 cents per page for data sent to the court.
Even more frustrating, by using Staples, a retail store, instead of the Clerk’s office, the bill for the copying now includes sales tax which would ordinarily be exempt on public records per RCW 82.08.02525.
North Renton resident Matt Hanbey showed a poster at last night’s meeting displaying a timeline related to Council activities on the Logan Six project. In the previous Council Meeting the poster and much of Mr. Hanbey’s presentation was mysteriously left out of the video feed.
An apparent censoring of a poster exhibit at last week’s audience comment further illustrated the heightened tension that is preventing residents and council members from freely communicating at council meetings.
In a blog post on March 25th I described how our city leaders should find their way back to the type of council meeting communication we had with residents in past decades. Prior to the pandemic, audience comment was an interactive and solution-oriented portion of each council meeting, in which council members routinely asked questions of presenters, shared their own perspectives on issues raised, engaged in cooperative problem solving, and often referred resident’s concerns to the Administration or a Council Committee for review. But lately it seems the “communication” consists entirely of residents giving three-minute monologues, with no response other than a possible “thank you… Next”
Two weeks after my post, a member of the public brought a poster board exhibit to the audience comment that had a timeline on it, and for some unknown reason the video recording system did not capture any images of it. Instead of the usual protocol of recording an image of the speaker, the cameras moved from focussing on the speaker to showing the council for the entire three minutes. This left those of us watching the meeting online very confused about what was on the poster that seemed to be so controversial that it was being censored.
This is the view that remote viewers had of Mr. Hanbey’s presentation at the April 14 meeting. The poster Mr. Hanbey held (which was written, shown to Council, and is therefore probably a public record) was never shared with the remote viewers of the meeting. As a public record, it was even at risk of not being properly retained, except a quick-thinking staff member managed to take a photo of it.
This was a huge departure from past decades, in which residents were welcome and even encouraged to bring written exhibits to audience comment, usually in the form of paper that could be displayed for everyone in the chambers using a special projector next to the audience comment podium. Residents would use the projector to show such things as maps, lists, photos, calendars, timelines, event posters, and any other exhibit that improved communication between the resident and the Renton Council. In the pre-digital age we could see the data projected on a screen (from paper or view foils), and in later years we could see it on our monitors on the council dais. Residents would certainly challenge us back then like they do now. Concerns and complaints have always been a common reason for residents to attend a council meeting. But that did not stop Council from encouraging residents to show written documents with their testimony.
With this display option no longer readily apparent , Matt Hanbey brought a poster-board chart instead, and it then seemed to be censored on the video feed.
Thankfully, Mr. Hanbey contacted Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Ed VanValey after he realized he and his exhibit were not shown on the meeting video feed, and CAO VanValey agreed to remedy the mistake at the next council meeting. That subsequent meeting occurred last night, and as CAO VanValey said, the timeline poster and Mr. Hanbey’s testimony were broadcast. Hence, the confusion has apparently been corrected, but not before at least two speakers mentioned it in last night’s meeting.
Whoever censored this audience comment has apparently been retrained, but the underlying tension that sowed the censorship should still be addressed. Elected Officials must remember that (as the Declaration of Independence says) “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that the residents that make their way to City Hall to speak with them are collectively their bosses. Council should engage with the public, the way any of us would engage with our employer, when issues are brought up or questions are raised.
Renton’s residents usually hold the answers to Renton’s problems, and it is Council’s job to gather these solutions and help implement them. Interacting during audience comment, including looking at the data the residents bring forth, is an important part of this assignment.
The view as my wife and I crawl for 25 minutes in a typical SeaTac airport arrival traffic jam last week
I’m excited about an arriving visitor this week, but I’m already dreading the traffic jam I know I’ll encounter at SeaTac Airport when we pick her up. While Port of Seattle leaders will give the excuse that these jams can’t be helped because of the large number of travelers, the reality is the Port created this problem with the poor traffic planning of the cell phone lot.
The 1960 SeaTac airport approach was brilliantly engineered for high volumes: three dedicated express lanes approaching the airport, growing into four — two departure lanes and two arrival lanes. Each of these roads double from two to four lanes at the terminal with the addition of curbside pick-up/drop-off lanes. The elegant design could smoothly handle today’s volume of travelers, if Port officials had not implemented the “rideshare weave” that requires 25% of the drivers to cut across four lanes of the other 75% of drivers in the last critical quarter mile of the approach.
As Rideshare became more prevalent –now estimated at about 25% of airport passengers– Sea-Tac and other airports across the nation set up waiting areas for drivers who are picking up. When drivers are notified their passengers are in the pick-up spot, they swiftly proceed to the designated location, and wisk their passenger to their destination.
Except at SeaTac Airport. Here at SeaTac, designers located the cell phone lot such that every rideshare driver must merge onto the right lane of the final stretch of the airport expressway, and then during the next quarter mile move four lanes to the left, before exiting into a typically backed-up lane into the parking garage. This flawed configuration has been snarling evening traffic into SeaTac for years, and can seriously impact all passengers arriving or departing from SeaTac airport by cars, busses, and courtesy vans (whether or not they are rideshare passengers).
Rideshare drivers picking up passengers, and other cell phone lot users, follow this path when informed that their passengers are ready. It requires a merge followed by three quick lane changes across the airport expressway. All arriving airport traffic is slowed by these lane changes.
As rideshare drivers negotiate the multitude of lane changes, often hugging the right lane as long as possible before aggressively moving left, the entire airport access road comes to a standstill– not because of volume (as the Port states) but because the Port officials implemented the dangerous weave in the traffic design about ten years ago.
Details of the weave across four lanes right before arrival-departure split
This nightly traffic jam can easily add 20-30 minutes or more to a pickup or drop-off time, stressing travel schedules and making it harder to coordinate driver and passenger connections. When an arriving motorist finally gets past the weave, the traffic into the arrivals or departure curbs usually flow reasonably well, except where it gets blocked by idling drivers whose passengers have not arrived, and refuse to go around again because they can’t tolerate the traffic jam a second time. The weave-related traffic jams trigger additional scofflaw activity near the airport entrance, where scores of drivers pull over onto the shoulder next to “no-parking” signs in an ad-hoc cell phone lot, preferring to risk a ticket over the traffic weave from the designated cell-phone lot.
The airport clearly needs to find a way to NOT have to move all the rideshare drivers from the right side to the left side. But instead of resolving this weave years ago (with perhaps a direct road connection from the cell phone lot to the parking garage), the Port spent $13.5 million improving circulation into and around the cell phone lot in 2022. And next the port will spend $79.3 million widening the airport expressway, and making the backed-up single lane into the parking garage longer. All this new additional pavement will provide more space for jammed up cars to queue, but won’t address the weave problem at the root of the backup.
New pavement will be added with roadway improvements in 2026 for $79.3 million, but the Cell Phone lot users will still have to weave across all lanes of arriving airport traffic
Together, we taxpayers are currently putting about five billion dollars into Sea-Tac Airport expansion, so it would be nice if we could get to the airport reliably. As I sit stewing in these jam-ups, I blame the Seattle Port Commissioners more than anyone else for the traffic mess. They have ultimate responsibility to make our airport usable, and the buck stops at their office. Most of them promise higher energy efficiency and lower carbon in their campaign literature, and thousands of idling cars and people going nowhere doesn’t cut it. The Commissioners could have solved this by now, and instead they are banking on a 2026 fix that probably won’t work.
Departing passengers fret about missing their flights, while drivers picking up loved ones wonder how long they will be waiting in the cold, in this typical evening traffic jam at Sea-Tac Airport. Evening brings the worst jams because aircraft arrivals –and ride share pickups– are typically at their highest.
“I know you’ve had the opportunity to meet with everyone, but I just want… I don’t want there to be the appearance that we’re not listening….that I haven’t heard. I just I don’t know that this format lends itself to being the best one for discussion. But if there’s a discussion that needs to be had, I’m happy to have it when that time is right.” (Council Member McIrvin, at 3/24/25 meeting)
Council observers have recently seen Renton residents complaining about not being heard at Council Meetings, and Council refusing to act, or even discuss acting, on issues that are brought before them by the public.
Individual Renton Council Members have no authority individually. But when a quorum of them agree on an issue, they have more authority than the Mayor. They are like the city’s “Board of Directors,” while the Mayor is CEO.
But the only way Council can use their authority, or even talk about using it, is in an open public meeting. So we taxpayers fund a comfortable council chambers, and staff it with a Clerk, Chief Administrator Officer, City Attorney, department heads, and a recording crew so that Council Meetings can be productive and effective.
We also provide an opportunity for Renton residents to interact with their council at these meetings, as Public Agencies are encouraged to do by state law.
Renton School District sends out regular mailers telling us they are reducing our costs. They base their analysis on a non-existent (magic?) house that did not increase in value from 2016 to 2024. Can we really trust them to educate our children when they present data in such a misleading way?
In reality, the taxes for the school district are rising quickly. This is a typical Renton Highlands house (owned by my son) valued at $723,000 in 2025. This house appreciated at a normal rate with all the others, with no remodeling. The local school taxes went up significantly, not down $1500.
Contrary to the District’s published statements that typical taxes have gone down $1500 over ten years, Renton’s local school taxes have actually been going up fast, rising by many hundreds of dollars per year for a typical home during this time.
You pay taxes for city representation, and your elected officials need to be focused on your needs. You have hired them to fulfill your agenda, not some third-party’s agenda in Seattle or elsewhere. You are their boss, and your needs are important.
So how do you remind your officials what your needs are, and make sure your officials remain focused on them during the four years between elections?
You speak to the Council and Mayor, send letters and emails to the Council and Mayor, phone the Council and Mayor, contact the media, and stage rallies and protests if necessary.
And you don’t do it just once. You do it as many times as it takes to get your message across. Summon the same conviction you would if you paid someone to fix your car, and they took your money but didn’t fix your car.
Speak to the Council and Mayor:
Speaking at a Council meeting is the best way to ensure that the Council and Mayor get your message without interference or miscommunication. Renton Council Meetings are generally held the first four Mondays of every month, and each regular meeting typically has an audience comment section near the beginning of the meeting. You need to sign up to speak in advance of the meeting.
You’ll typically only be given three minutes to speak to the Council, so it’s a good idea to have your comments prepared and possibly even written out in advance.
Bob Baker, who has dedicated years to organizing the “save the Cedar River campaign,” became wistful when I asked him about Renton’s vanishing “amicus brief” that would have protected the Cedar River Valley. Hearing Bob report on the difference this would have made in the Court of Appeals trial is like listening to a die-hard Seahawks fan discuss the fateful decision to try a pass instead of giving the ball to Marshawn Lynch on the one yard line at the Super Bowl. Like Marshawn reports about his teammates at the Superbowl, the reaction of everyone close to the “Save the Cedar River effort” was “What the f….?
Mr. Baker had spent years raising the tens of thousands of dollars required for the Court of Appeals to hear the case, and Bob reports that at the trial two out of the three judges said that if Renton had submitted an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief expressing municipal concerns about the plant, they would have found in favor of “Save the Cedar River.”
I was recently invited to a meeting of Renton airport users who have lost confidence in Renton’s airport management. They are considering forming an airport tenants union, to organize and push back on breath-taking rent increases. One airport business owner reports that the city has asked him to sign onto a 120 percent rent increase, 12 times bigger than what our state legislature said was the maximum a residential landlord could ever increase rent in a single year. Some tenants have said they have been given surprise retroactive rent increases, in which management said they forgot to raise the rent months earlier, and now demand tens of thousands in back rent– similarly to the billing failure that triggered the Landing Gear Works to ultimately move out.
