I want to reassure all members the name change was not an easy or a quick decision, one that the Board thought about for over a year and actively discussed the last six months, with some in favour, some wanting to keep “Union” before we came to the unanimous decision to recommend the Cycle Toronto to members.

Why? Our decision wasn’t based on our own personal name preferences, or past loyalties, but in accordance with our “fiduciary duty” as Directors to consider the best interests of the Bike Union. Half our revenue is membership revenue, half grants, many of which are start-up grants that will not be renewed. We’re simply not financially self-sustaining, even after doubling membership in the last year, nor do we have the financial resources to provide you the level of advocacy, member benefits and communication we think is needed to keep you engaged and secure better bike infrastructure.

We have very aggressive membership growth targets (to 10,000) and need to replace the expiring grants with business, corporate sponsorships as you see on our home page (Platinum & Gold sponsors), in addition to increasing members dues as we again seek to double membership.

I remain concerned about “Cycle Toronto” because THAT name has touristy / recreational overtones that say nothing about the serious activism and change agency that the (currently) Toronto Cycle Union represents. To that end, a name such as “Toronto Cyclists’ Coalition” (or some other similar name) holds more semantic weight.

I’ve yet to hear why the directors are offering such a stark choice. What of the other options, names that sound more inclusive than “Cycle Toronto” and speak to the advocacy that the TCU’s known for? And if it’s going to be another name, why not a more inclusive process for choosing what the alternative should be?

The TCU brand has been built by members being passionate about making cycling a safe activity in Toronto. But as visible and helpful as they are, it’s the name that likely brought them to the organization. I’m sure the directors understand that with another name their organization might not have come this far, and that changing it risks the goodwill of core supporters.

When it comes to the word “union”, and the question of whether it sounds overly exclusive, or partisan, my response is that this is a union unlike any other. I wish people would make this point more often: anyone – really anyone – can join. And even if you don’t decide to join, if you cycle this is a group that will advocate on your behalf.

I feel the TCU name capitalizes on people’s expectations of what a union is: a group that negotiates, and that exists to address the needs of its members.

It’s provocative, as it should be. It has my vote.