Why do some DC residents receive free trash collection but not others?

Imagine if DC provided free electricity to all residents in single-family homes but not those living in apartments. That would sound unfair, but that is the policy DC has for trash and recycling collection service.

If you live in a single-family home or an apartment building with three units or less in DC, the DC Department of Public Works collects your waste free of charge (you pay for it in property taxes, of course). If you live in a larger building, a private hauler must be paid to provide this service. And landlords may choose to pass along those costs to renters. So why does DC exclude some residents from a municipal service while others get it for free?

If a public service is not universally free, it is often based on financial need, like free and reduced price school lunch. However, households receiving municipal trash service have higher incomes on average: $187,000 for detached single-family households compared to $77,000 (a weighted average from the attached census data) for those in buildings with 5 or more units. So DC provides free trash pick up to Jeff Bezos at his $23 million Kalorama mansion but those in larger dwellings could face fees from landlords for private collection.

If the service is not based on need, is it because picking up from apartments is too costly? That does not appear to be the case either. Charlotte, North Carolina, is similar in population size to DC and serves larger residential buildings that have dumpsters instead of rollout carts. The city’s analysis found the annual cost of operating the service was $55 per household at those multifamily buildings but $186 per single-family home.

So how did DC arrive at this exclusionary practice? The policy dates back to when DC switched from contracting out trash collection to providing direct municipal service in the 1920s. Coal ash was a major source of waste and Congress did not want to pay more to provide service to apartments, so the DC Board of Commissioners excluded them from the new service. The DC Council codified the policy in the 1970s and today it remains largely unchanged from 100 years ago.

The policy was expanded in the 1990s when recycling collection was added as another free service for residents already getting city trash service. Apartments were again excluded and faced even higher costs as a private hauler now also had to be paid to collect recycling.

DC offers some relief - But for whom?

In 1990 the DC Council did offset trash collection costs for some residents: condo owners. In lieu of free service, condo owner-occupants today receive a trash collection tax credit of $117. This is not as appealing as fully subsidized service but $117 per year is better than $0, which is what apartment renters who pay trash fees receive.

For decades condo owners in our region have campaigned, separately from renters, to receive city trash collection provided to single-family homeowners. A 1984 Washington Post article quotes a condo president in New Carrollton demanding municipal trash service saying, “We are not transient residents. We are homeowners, we are here to stay and we want the services we pay for.” Baltimore expanded trash collection to condos in the 1980s because a councilmember pushed for the change arguing it was a matter of equity, although that equity did not extend to renters in apartments whose landlords pass along trash costs.

The national trend

Most cities exclude multifamily buildings from municipal waste collection. The few cities that serve all residents are often tempted during budget crunches to cut service to larger buildings. In Charlotte, for instance, where the city’s own study showed apartments cost far less per household to service, lawmakers tried to cut their service until a public outcry quashed the proposal. City leaders in Green Bay, Wisconsin proposed eliminating trash service from mobile homes and apartments to save money. The mobile home residents were able to keep their service, but the apartment-dwellers were unsuccessful and lost their subsidized city service.

Why don’t cities love apartments?

Compared to single-family homes, multifamily households consume far less energy and water, enjoy lower housing costs, are more racially diverse, and yield cities more tax revenue per acre. Dense housing makes possible the dynamism and energy that make cities special. One would think DC and other cities would eagerly embrace multifamily housing.

Instead, most cities declare the majority of land off-limits for any multifamily buildings. In DC, 59% of land zoned for housing is reserved exclusively for single-family homes. Selective municipal trash service is a more subtle way cities favor single-family homes over apartments.

One justification for the unfavorable treatment of multifamily rentals is that most are operated by for-profit businesses and therefore should not receive the same city services as homeowners. The problem is that increasing apartment operating costs impacts tenants. Landlords may pass along the cost of trash collection through higher rent or a trash fee that might cost around $10 or $25 per month. This is why DC offers a property tax credit to low-income renters who do not pay property taxes directly but have that cost passed on to them from landlords.

What does the DC Council say about this?

For nearly 90 years Congress stipulated in appropriation bills that the city not use its federal funds to “collect ashes or other refuse” from apartments. That language quietly disappeared in the 2008 DC appropriations bill and has not been seen since. Congress no longer wishes to insert itself into how DC collects “ashes” or other refuse and the DC Council has the authority to serve all residents.

I reached out to ask Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, who chairs the committee overseeing waste issues, why DC has this policy in the modern era. A spokesperson for her office informed me that Councilmember Cheh is open to rethinking the existing policy and has assigned staff to study DC’s current practice and what other cities have done differently in this area.

What are some alternatives?

Personally, I believe trash and recycling collection is squarely within the realm of what local governments can and should provide to residents. And I think making it universally free to residents like our K-12 schools is a practical and progressive solution.

A short-term improvement would be expanding service to buildings with up to six units, which is Philadelphia’s policy. While apartment dumpsters present a new challenge, these 4-6 unit buildings utilize carts like their single-family neighbors. The city’s garbage trucks already drive by these households each week. Increased investment in trucks and personnel by the DC Council could bring more residents into the fold.

Apartment tenants in Charlotte and Green Bay loudly protested when politicians proposed taking away their municipal service. Right now, in DC, there is no outcry or public debate about the lack of service. It is accepted as the century-old status quo. But as the district reconsiders things like the names of people honored on city buildings and the racial equity of single-family zoning, maybe we will take a look at who gets excluded from city trash collection and why.