Itake offense at the unfair claim of Initiative 28 supporters that the reasons the bottle bill was voted down included racial issues {front page, Nov. 5}. That is absurd.

It seems that whenever voters in Wards 4, 5, 7 and 8 vote in a bloc on an issue, the first implication people make is that the issue was a racial one, instead of questioning why the action was taken. Isn't it possible that these and other voters simply didn't feel that Initiative 28 was the answer to our litter problem?

Maybe mine is an isolated case, but it never occurred to me that this initiative was a "black" or a "white" issue. What did occur to me is the fact that I use public transportation to do my grocery shopping, as do thousands of other D.C. residents (black and white), and I simply don't have the space in my apartment to collect bottles and cans to be returned to a grocery store at some later date for a 5-cent refund (of my own money, no less). I throw my empty bottles and cans into trash receptacles and dumpsters, not on the streets. For me, this bill was inconvenient and unnecessary.

Perhaps the proponents of the bottle bill made it a racial issue, but I'd like to think that black voters cast their votes on the basis of personal observation and deliberation, and not because of slick media campaigns and celebrity-type endorsements.

RENEE J. ROCHESTER Washington