Written by 
Renton is increasing the price of small airplane tie-down spaces (front) by 74% this year. Rent for the T-hangars (back) is increasing by 42%. New rates are effective June 1st.
A statue of Clayton Scott, one of the Northwest’s great aviators who used to fly out of Renton, greets visitors to Renton’s Clayton Scott Field. Clayton Scott was inspired to fly in his youth after seeing the first barnstormers, and Renton’s Clayton Scott Field honors his love of aviation and spirit of discovery. Young people today are finding it increasingly expensive and difficult to follow in his footsteps.
In previous posts I’ve expressed concern that Renton Airport is pushing out propeller aircraft and ushering in more private jets in their place. In so doing, Renton Airport Management is making the airport less accessible for Renton residents, and losing sight of our community’s aviation goals as codified in our Renton Airport Sustainability Management Plan. It may not be long before Renton airport becomes an asset for Seattle and Eastside tech billionaires, while residents of Renton won’t be able to afford to use it. And every time Renton replaces a group of prop airplanes with another business jet we inch closer to having to extend the airport into the $500 million high school that is currently in planning.
This year’s rent increases of 74% for small airplane tie-down spaces and 42% for small T-hangars increases this concern. Renton’s tie-down rates will leapfrog those at Boeing Field; the new tie down rates for small airplanes will be a 33% more expensive at Renton Airport than at Boeing Field, even though Boeing Field offers two runways, a longer runway, and more services.
Airport Management has stated that these rent increases are needed to sustain the airport, but that is arguably because they have been driving out popular small airplane businesses like “the Landing Gear Works” and “Rainier Flight Services,” that were renting numerous facilities that are now vacant.
Some might say that anyone who is rich enough to afford an airplane can afford these rates, but that is not a clear picture of who is being impacted. Some of these airplanes are owned by Renton working people (or frequently several of them banding together) who maintain an airplane in order to advance their flight careers, commute to someplace remote, or fulfill important life goals; the large rent increase will impact them. As small airplane owners give up on Renton’s rates, private jet operators will rapidly move in to take over their real estate, and these jets will not be owned by Renton residents.
If we stay on this course, Renton will soon have the costs and negative impacts of running an airport, without the opportunity for Renton’s residents to use it ourselves.
Renton City Council has ultimate responsibility for airport leases, and anyone who wants to express concern about these increases should contact the council. Please see my post here regarding how to reach them.
Starting June 1st, small airplane tie-downs will cost $185.60 per month, and T-hangers will cost $580 per month (excerpt from Renton’s 2025-2026 Fee Schedule)
In 2023-2024, small airplane tie-downs were $106.43 per month, and T-hangers were $409.43 per month (excerpt from Renton’s 2023-2024 Fee Schedule)
Boeing Field tie-down rates of $124 per month are only 67% of what Renton will soon be charging
Chart from Airport Director’s Report at May 13 RAAC meeting
The rates should be different for residents vs. non-residents. That may run afoul of FAA rules, but we do it for park reservations and the community center.
On the other hand, Renton had not raised prices for I think over 10 years. Someone shared the data with me earlier this year but I can’t find it. So while the big jump is shocking, tenants have had a nice deal over the last several years. Anyone feel free to reply if they have this info or if I’m wrong, etc.
But the fact that the prices are higher than boeing field is alarming though, that’s for sure.
It’s a legitimate point Anonymous that it has been a while since they’ve raised rents, so an increase (of some amount) is probably justified.
The reason I’ve made a point of bringing this one to the public’s attention is that some members of the Council accuse other landlords of being heartless for giving 10-15 percent rent increases, and then in the one area where they themselves are landlords they impose a 74% increase in one year. The hypocrisy bothers me.
The tie-down is nothing but a square of asphalt that is 80-90% funded by federal grants, and can be resurfaced with federal grant money. The asphalt lasts for 30 years with minimal maintenance. The land was gifted to the city with no mortgage, and the city pays no taxes on it. But City Council imposes a 74% increase in the rental price in one year.
Meanwhile, most landlords in town are maintaining actual buildings and dealing with 30-year high interest rates on their mortgages, property taxes that have increased 60% in five years, and high inflationary increases on wages, tools and supplies… yet some members of the Council call them greedy if they raise rents 10%-15%.
And the Council has hurt tenants other ways. The Council has recently unfairly evicted airport tenants because the tenants will not make major repairs (like new roofs) on buildings that they only have short-term leases on. And Council has allowed other illegal actions against tenants in arrears, like withholding their airport access credentials even before going to court, and not readily accepting payment after giving a three-day notice to pay or vacate.
I see a pattern of Council (at least some members) projecting their own inability to be fair landlords onto everyone else, and I think they need to become more introspective about it.
Good point on both accounts. An increase is fair, but it should not be egregious.
I don’t think the council is involved. They’ve checked out and are letting city staff be the legislative body.
“I don’t think the council is involved. They’ve checked out and are letting city staff be the legislative body.” Yes, this is true. And so wrong. How can the incumbents running for re-election run on their “record of the past 4 years in office”? They’ve done nothing good for the City, allowing staff to make decisions the mayor agrees with when it’s not in the best interest of the residents. Council members say they “won’t go against the mayor. He gets angry, abusive and it’s not worth it.” We have a bully running this city and no oversight by the Council we elected. Pay attention this election year people of Renton.
Mayor ain’t perfect. But honestly he’s trying as opposed to what Maxwell would have done. Maybe figure out to diplomatically change the situation without needlessly making it a us vs them?
It’s not good enough
what Maxwell would’ve done had she been elected is irrelevant to the current mayor’s performance over the past six years
We could designate a specific percentage of tie-downs and hangars exclusively for aircraft owned by Renton residents. Based on a quick perusal, this doesn’t seem to be prohibited by FAA regulations, unlike direct rent discounts, which I think are.
Very interesting idea Ben. I’ll look into whether this would be allowed.