As faith leaders serving congregations and communities in Wards 5, 7, and 8, we care deeply about the families, neighborhood businesses, workers, seniors, and young people who call these communities home. Each week, we minister to residents who are working hard, caring for their families, supporting local businesses, and doing their part to build cleaner, safer, and stronger neighborhoods.
Our faith calls us to care for our neighbors, stand with those whose voices are too often overlooked, and advocate for policies that promote justice and the common good. Across the District, residents and small-business owners want cleaner streets, healthier communities, and a city government that protects the people it serves.
Yet the debate surrounding the proposed D.C. Bottle Bill has raised serious concerns for those of us who serve in communities that could bear the greatest burden. Some members of the D.C. Council appear prepared to impose a costly new system without adequately answering basic questions: Who will ultimately pay for it? Where will redemption facilities be located? And which neighborhoods will experience the greatest impact?
If implemented, this legislation would add a 10-cent deposit to nearly every beverage sold in the District, increasing upfront grocery costs for working families while placing additional pressure on neighborhood businesses. Ten cents may sound insignificant in a committee room, but it is not insignificant to residents already stretching every dollar to cover food, utilities, rent, transportation, medicine, and other necessities.
We see these struggles every day. They are real, they are urgent, and they should not simply be dismissed as the cost of implementing a new government program.
We are also deeply concerned about what this proposal could mean for Wards 5, 7, and 8. These predominantly Black and Brown communities contain much of the land that could accommodate large-scale redemption or waste-related operations. Our neighborhoods have already carried more than their fair share of industrial activity, heavy truck traffic, pollution, and other environmental burdens.
Under this proposal, residents of our wards could be hit twice: first at the grocery store through increased upfront costs, and then again in their neighborhoods through the possible concentration of redemption facilities, additional trucks, pollution, litter, odors, rodents, and traffic near homes, schools, churches, and small businesses.
Although we serve three distinct wards, our concerns are shared. Ward 5 residents know the consequences of concentrating industrial and waste-related uses near established neighborhoods. Ward 7 residents have too often watched major policy decisions move forward without adequate consultation with the people most affected. Ward 8 residents continue to confront environmental and economic inequities while being asked to accept burdens that other parts of the city would likely resist.
Councilmember Zachary Parker has previously raised concerns about the inequitable concentration of trash-transfer facilities in the District. That history should cause the Council to proceed with greater caution—not repeat the same pattern under a different name.
Other jurisdictions also offer cautionary examples of the unintended consequences that can accompany large-scale redemption programs. These facilities do not exist only on paper. Their placement can create real concerns involving sanitation, traffic, public safety, and neighborhood livability. Before approving this legislation, the Council should provide clear answers about where facilities would be located, how they would be managed, and how surrounding communities would be protected.
We do not believe this bill is the right tool to improve recycling or create stable employment. The District already has an agency responsible for recycling and waste management: the Department of Public Works. If the Council is serious about cleaner streets and stronger environmental outcomes, it should strengthen DPW, improve and expand existing recycling programs, increase education and enforcement, and invest in permanent, well-paying jobs for District residents.
We are also concerned about a process that has not sufficiently included the communities that could be most affected. Policies with citywide consequences—and particularly those that could disproportionately affect Wards 5, 7, and 8—should be developed through open conversations with residents, clergy, advisory neighborhood commissioners, environmental advocates, and small-business owners.
There is a better path. Through education, investment, collaboration, and accountability, the District can improve recycling and keep our streets and waterways clean without placing another financial burden on residents who can least afford it.
As faith leaders, we are especially concerned about the small, the least, the lost, and the left out. The District is built by the families who live here, the workers who sustain it, and the small-business owners who invest in our neighborhoods. They should not be required to carry another policy burden without clear answers, meaningful safeguards, and accountability.
The D.C. Bottle Bill is the wrong tool at the wrong time. It would make daily life more expensive, deepen existing inequities, and risk continuing a pattern in which Black and Brown communities shoulder a disproportionate share of the city’s environmental and economic burdens.
The D.C. Council should reject the Bottle Bill before today’s unanswered questions become tomorrow’s lasting harm.
