Written by 
Many Renton School supporters feel they are being “Gaslighted” when told by district leaders that they voted to expand Renton High School into the neighborhood, taking 40 homes and businesses
Like the majority of Renton voters, I’ve always voted “YES” when asked for more funding by the Renton School District. Our children are our future, and they deserve the best start in life that we can give them.
But about a year ago I had an unexpected online disagreement with the husband of a School Board member, when I learned about the neighborhood that is being forcibly taken and destroyed to support the school expansion. He seemed to think it was common knowledge that the mass condemnations were going to happen, and I said I was not in favor of it. I had thought the school was going to move if we approved the bond issue. His comments sent me to the School District’s website to get my facts straight.
Well, it turns out, the School District CHANGED the details of what we voted for, after the election.
The bond issue is for 676 million dollars– over a billion dollars with interest. It’s a little short of details, so the last line directs voters to the www.rentonschools.us for more information.
Like most bond issues, the wording was short on details, so voters were told to look to the district website to see the plans.
The School District Website pointed voters to this page to get the details (which is still on the website), where voters could scroll down for property purchase details:
And here is the wording today: “Identify and purchase additional property for the expansion of the Renton High School site….we will build the new Renton High School on an expanded site at the current location”
It looks like we all voted to expand the school site, and condemn numerous homes and businesses.
But wait! What did this website say when we were voting? Check the wayback machine…..
The wording when we were voting in November 2022; “Identify and purchase about 40 acres for a future Renton High School site…we will build the new Renton High campus within district boundaries (location to be determined)”
The wayback machine also reminds me that prior to the election, the School District website also included many reasons that Renton High School had to be moved. This page was also on the website:
This page gives numerous reasons that Renton High School has to relocate to a new site, including being built on a Native American Historical site and Airport restrictions. This page can no longer be found on the School District’s website.
All of this text has now been removed from the website, and the eminent domain actions have begun to increase the Renton High footprint at a location that the district does not like.
So, we are not losing our wits when we remember we were voting to move the school, not condemn the neighborhood around it.
I looked into this further after attending the special meeting on eminent domain last week, and was surprised to see that the district now reports they were 18 months into a two-year school-siting study when we had the election. Many residents of the impacted neighborhood now believe the District had already decided they might condemn their neighborhood, but didn’t want to put it on the ballot because they knew many of us would not vote for that. The ballot issue needed 60% to pass, and it got 63%; so 3.5 % of voters saying “no” to condemning all these homes and businesses would have saved the neighborhood. I would have been one of them.
I’m the one who posted before about this, that maybe the district likely knew before and/or I’m wondering what the 10 sites were. Man do people have no morality anymore. Treating us all like ants. Is there any way to get the siting study?
Limited by airport and archeology haha. Do you think the airport approached the school district, and their plan is to now get approval to infill the lake to expand the runway? Because they can say the school took the other option.
Yes Anonymous, I’ve recently been given the siting study. Here it is: http://www.randycorman.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/RHS-NRNA-Project-Update-24-0821b.pdf
Thank you.
Someone wrote to me and let me know that the following testimony was given to the Renton School Board on August 14, 2024:
I am commenting regarding the use of funds from the November 8th, 2022 Bond in which approved money for 40 acres of land and a new High School, not expansion on the current site. The actual text of the King County bond that we voted on reads “Construct a new high school to replace Renton High School”.
There were many promises to voters posted on the RSD website about a new high school facility with a modern learning environment. The RSD website now shows different information about the Nov. 2022 Bond. There have been alterations to the text which misleads voters to believe expansion and renovation was approved instead of building a brand new high school.
Specifically, on February 25th, 2024, the wording was changed to say the purpose of the Bond was to “Identify and purchase additional property for the expansion of the Renton High School site”. Prior to that date there was no mention of expansion. It used to say the purpose of the Bond was to “Identify and purchase about 40 acres for a future Renton High School site”. All the information on the RSD website was very specific about needing a new facility at a completely different site, with many reasons and explanations as to why the voters should approve funds for this purpose.
These changes can be seen using WaybackMachine. I don’t believe you can just change the wording about a Bond and then spend the money how you like. I called OSPI for more information, and was told that it is the law that a school district must hold a Public Hearing if they want to use funds differently than approved by voters. It is the law. Per RCW 28A.530.020 subsection 2 “If the school board subsequently determines that state or local circumstances should cause any alteration to the specific expenditures … the board shall first conduct a public hearing to consider those circumstances and to receive public testimony.” If no public hearing was held, then RSD is misappropriating funds and all activities surrounding this project need to cease.
Furthermore, RSD School Board resolution NO. 02-23/24 is premised with “WHEREAS, Renton School District No. 403 has … passed a bond to renovate or replace Renton High School; …” Again, wording inaccurate. It says “renovate or replace” Renton High School which is not true and was not approved by voters. This resolution cannot be considered valid because voters didn’t approve that. It also follows that RSD does not have the authority to purchase by threatening eminent domain 42 properties set forth in the acquisition list included in this resolution.
RSD has not followed the proper process to use the Bond funds the way they are doing. In fact, not even a year had gone by before the RHS expansion plan was underway. It is on the fast track I would not have voted for this Bond if I knew that RSD would be taking neighbors’ homes and putting baseball fields and parking lots in their place. This plan was not approved by voters but is being pushed forward with contractors already hired and timelines to demolish homes already laid out. I am here to say that it is not acceptable, not legal, not ethical. RSD needs to step back and cease all activity related to this project, follow the process as required by law.
Anonymous here again. Wow, wow but let me guess. We don’t really have any recourse.
I’m not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I can tell you what I’ve seen on the political side in my work on City Council.
The normal, routine way compliance with state law is controlled in School Districts and Cities is through self-policing by board members, the executive, and the agency’s attorneys. Anyone of these individuals can bring a compliance concern to the group’s attention, and as a matter of ethics and reputation they should all act to correct course if necessary. There should be strong peer pressure to adhere to proper processes.
If they won’t get back on course, residents and media can typically act to call attention to the potential error, and an ethical board will acknowledge the concerns, discuss them, and take any corrective action.
If that does not happen, residents can contact the State Attorney General’s office, and ask for an opinion on a specific circumstance, and it’s been my experience that the Attorney General’s office will eventually render an opinion– like a referee– perhaps in one to three months.
In this case, it looks like the resident called out the Board in testimony at a meeting, and probably in a follow-up letter, and I don’t think an action was taken by the Board. (If they had reviewed the concern in Executive session, they should have, as a courtesy, notified the complainant that they felt no further action was warranted– in other words, they should have at least said something.)
If they have given no response, and the resident still has concerns (as I think they do) the next step would typically be for the residents to either increase the urgency of requests for reconsideration, or to contact the State Attorney General for a determination.
The last possibility, and most expensive, is to launch a lawsuit to get things back on track. Often this process is too slow, and the the results come in too late, after much damage is already done.
This has one more wrinkle, since the residents are effectively being served with condemnation actions, which triggers court involvement. The defense of these actions is a topic for their lawyers to debate, and I’m not sure if the changing wording of the ballot would enter the defense or not– that is a lawyer question.