ACA began to promote and fund (in the way of grants) rides and gatherings for narrow demographics. Perhaps one way of 'celebrating diversity', but it's the opposite of inclusivity.

Or they saw that their user base of older white guys like me was rapidly dwindling, realized that they'd missed the bus re bikepacking (whose main online presence, as pointed out earlier in this thread, promotes diversity much more aggressively and yet is thriving), and figured they might as well go down fighting.

It looks like the ballot on selling the building went out to voting members today. The material states ACA would remain a tenant in the building and would not move (at this time). The mailings and language regarding the vote outreach process are worded purely in favor of a "yes" response. The vote closes on November 24.

An alternate viewpoint by former ACA leaders and lifetime members advocating for a NO vote:

Dear Members and Friends of Adventure Cycling,

If you are a current member of Adventure Cycling, you may have recently received a letter from the organization's new executive director, Andy Williamson, urging members to vote for the sale of our Missoula headquarters at 150 E. Pine Street. The organization has received an offer of $2.55 million for the building and property. While we appreciate the financial challenges facing the organization, we believe selling this building—the debt-free, member-funded heart of Adventure Cycling—is the wrong solution at the wrong time.

Our goal is not confrontation but clarity. Below we address several points made in Andy Williamson’s message and explain why keeping the headquarters is central to Adventure Cycling’s recovery and long-term vitality.

1 · Financial Stability Requires Rebuilding, Not Liquidation
Andy Williamson states the $2.55 million sale would provide a financial “runway.” In truth, this is a one-time infusion that consumes a core endowment asset with limited long-term benefit. Independent analyses from former staff and Life Members demonstrate that Adventure Cycling can balance its budget without selling the building, through right-sizing the staff, leasing unused space, restoring donor confidence, and rebuilding programs. The building itself can generate revenue via tenants while continuing to serve as the organization’s public face. Once sold, that stream—and the underlying equity—are gone forever.

2 · An “Underutilized” Building Is a Symptom, Not the Cause
Andy's letter cites an 'underutilized, aging building' that houses only seven staff. Yet that is a management choice, not an inherent flaw. Adventure Cycling’s earlier success stemmed from a dedicated staff working together under one roof, where spontaneous collaboration and shared purpose fueled innovation. Bringing staff back to Missoula—full- or part-time—would revive this culture and improve member service. National studies confirm that in-person collaboration increases creativity and performance, benefits that cannot be replicated through a fully remote structure.

3 · Deferred Maintenance Is Manageable
The building is fully paid for and exempt from property tax. Historical operating costs average roughly $25,000 per year for utilities, insurance, and routine upkeep. Moreover, the Life Member Fund and donor community stand ready to support maintenance when engaged transparently. Selling a building because of manageable upkeep costs is fiscally shortsighted.

4 · Membership Decline Reflects Lost Engagement, Not “Aging Out”
Leadership attributes falling membership to demographics. In fact, ACA’s own data show that the older cycling cohort is growing, not shrinking, nationwide. Membership losses track instead with reduced programs, rising dues, and the diminished services now offered through a remote staff . Restoring value—through vibrant tours, high-quality publications, and responsive outreach—will rebuild membership far more sustainably than selling headquarters property.

5 · Mission and Identity Depend on Place
For nearly 34 years, 150 E. Pine Street has welcomed cyclists from around the world. It is part museum, part visitor center, and wholly symbolic of Adventure Cycling's mission to inspire, empower, and connect people to travel by bike. Relinquishing ownership of this “Mecca of bicycle travel” would fracture that identity. The building embodies continuity, credibility, and community trust—qualities no lease-back agreement can replace.

6 · Constructive Alternatives Exist
Rather than liquidating assets, ACA should implement the actionable recovery strategies already outlined by longtime members and advisors:

• Re-establish balanced budgets where expenses match income;
• Rebuild the interconnected 'engagement funnel' of routes, tours, membership, magazine, and advocacy;
• Lease unused building space to compatible nonprofits or outdoor businesses;
• If necessary, borrow short-term funds against the equity of the headquarters building;
• Launch a donor appeal linked to the 50th Anniversary celebration;
• Recruit new leadership and board members with proven nonprofit and financial expertise.

These measures strengthen the organization while preserving its heritage and its home.

7 · A Vote NO Is a Vote for Adventure Cycling’s Future
Selling the headquarters might ease today’s cash flow but would undermine tomorrow’s foundation. Adventure Cycling has weathered crises before—each time by relying on the passion, generosity, and ingenuity of its staff and members, not by selling the assets acquired over decades.

We therefore urge every eligible member to vote NO on the proposed sale. Keep Adventure Cycling rooted in Missoula, where it began and where its mission still thrives.

The fact that ACA was cash positive at year-end 2023 makes this proposed building sale especially troubling. For that reason, the members of Save ACA will be voting NO on the sale of the building.

You have that same opportunity—but timing is critical.
If you are not a current member, you must join or renew by 7:59 a.m. Monday, November 3 to be eligible to vote. Voting will take place between 8a.m. November 4 and November 24 through the official voting page, https://www.adventurecycling.org/mem...-building-sale.

With respect, determination, and gratitude,
The members of Save ACA:
Dan Burden
Lys Burden
Greg Siple
June Siple
Jim Sayer
Sheila Snyder
Cyndi Steiner
Ginny Sullivan
Gary MacFadden

I've started a new thread about the ACA building sale vote.
I think this thread is kinda used up.

Thanks! We need to have a discussion. I'll head over there ...

Seems to me you are missing the fact that ACA pioneered the GDMBR, I think before bikepacking.com existed? Clearly, ACA has made mistakes but to solve them it is best to correctly identify them.

I go to bikepacking.com frequently. I am curious, how, exactly, do they "promote diversity much more aggressively"? I ask because I have never noticed such a thing. I am not questioning that they are diverse, My impression is that they are naturally diverse without aggressive promotion but, it is honestly not even something I think about when I am on their site. I go there for info on "bikepacking" routes and related gear etc. and that is what I get. THAT is good. On the other hand, ACA has been in your face aggressive to the point of tortured definitions of "adventure" so as to be "diverse." Actual bicycle touring became an after thought.

I want to think about it more, but my initial impression is that sums up how I have been feeling.

Diversity is cool, makes life diverse and interesting.

I'd just like to point out that the y-axis is dollars, not people. The rise in values year over year could be inflation or the increased industry focus on higher-end/higher margin products.

It could even be a rise in profit margins masking a decline in participation.

To imply that $ = people is shaky ground

No argument there.

Absolutely.
Although sales of bicycles did jump during the Covid pandemic. When they were in stock.
I suspect that many of those bikes are rusting quietly in garages and storage sheds.

The shocking stat is how few children are cycling.
Many of us "of a certain age" lived on our bikes as kids.
Go by any elementary school today and the bike racks are mostly empty.
Go by at 7:30a and there is a line of cars dropping off kids.
In fact, most schools build in the past 30 years have drop-off and pick-up lanes.

Atlantic article, firewalled
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/a...ecline/683377/
The number of kids who rode 6+ times a year dropped from 20 million in the 1990s to 10 million in 2023,
The kicker - only 5% of kids rode their bike "frequently".

Because I could bike to school in any weather, deliver newspapers,
bike to the drug store, bike to the park, bike where I shouldn't bike to,
(In Puerto Rico, no less.)
I had the ability to imagine biking across the country.
That is no longer a shared experience with younger generations.

You can't have adventures on a bicycle if you can't bike.
Organizations like the League of American Bicyclists addressed this issue.
ACA put its focus elsewhere.

I agree, it's definitely a generational difference and an uphill climb for new younger members.

Hope your not expecting him to reply to that.

I've seen some proxy materials for stock mergers that look a lot like that. Does this mean ACA is being run by MBAs, instead of people with deep subject matter expertise, like captains of industry?

I have mostly been silent on ACA philosophy in this thread. The two times I was a member was solely because it was included in the two trips I took with them, most recent was in 2018, thus my membership expired in 2019.

Thus, the news of ACA attempting to broaden their appeal to other groups was news to me.

I have never been a member of the Sierra Club. Today there is an article in the NY Times (paywall) on how Sierra Club has lost a lot of members in recent years when they were attempting to appeal to other groups. Pasted from the article: ... its leaders sought to expand far beyond environmentalism, embracing other progressive causes. Those included racial justice, labor rights, gay rights, immigrant rights and more.

From what I have read in this thread, it sounds like ACA and Sierra Club attempted the same sort of goal to expand membership, and both misjudged.

If anyone is interested in the (paywall) NYT piece, link is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/07/u...l-justice.html

At the risk of stating the obvious, from what I've seen firsthand over the past 20+ years is that the members of organizations and the staff of organizations often live in two different environments and have notably different worldviews. Staffers often feel a greater "allyship" (to use the term) with other organizations than they do with their own membership, having sometimes moved to and from those other organizations in their careers.

A strong and close oversight by an active board of directors that does represent the members' interests can help correct this. However, in some organizations staff have been known to control the board nomination and election process to ensure "smooth and harmonious operation". Until the members weigh in by no longer being members. Two organizations that I have been involved with where the bylaws require the board members to be elected by and represent specific member groups seem to have been more successful in resisting this trend.

I don't have enough information to say if this is the exact sequence of events that happened in ACA. For decades, ACA's physical location thousands of miles from K Street seemed to help insulate it from the pervasive groupthink of other national organizations. But with instant communication, social influence, and other cultural factors, that may no longer have been the case.

So much to address here, as a Life Member of both organizations and as someone who has been a volunteer for both in national-level positions.

For 30+ years, the League of American Bicyclists has been ignoring their core membership cohort of higher-mileage club members and instead chasing people who aren't committed riders. And their membership numbers aren't anything to brag about. It's true that in many areas club cyclists are a diminishing number of total riders, but overall ridership is going down and LAB's initiatives haven't put much of a dent in it. And there are many who have heard of LAB who don't necessarily have a high opinion of the organization as it's been pushing polarizing "social justice" initiatives in alliance with their K Street chums.

ACA for nearly its entire history stayed steadily focused on promoting and supporting long-distance bicycle travel. For a long time ACA's focus was rewarded with membership numbers substantially larger than LAB's. And then, they weren't, but that's a very recent phenomenon - one that this and other threads have belabored. But I think there's a stronger argument that ACA's recent woes are because they were seen as focusing on a lot of other issues than their original focus.

I know that ACA and LAB have worked together to get the proper organization working on the proper issue. Examples include the USBRS and state rumble strip policies, which ACA has handled with some success (albeit mixed). Anything urban usually ends up in LAB's lap, unless Bikes Belong (the bike industry advocacy arm) decides it will deal with it instead. Conflating the two is how you get ideas like the proposed ACA / LAB / ABW merger nearly a decade ago, which might have killed all three.

There is a possibility my numerous comments on this forum on these topics could invite action that could result in my losing my biggest current contract. And I'm no stranger to seeing severe career-damaging repercussions from being too honest in my public statements. But at this stage of my life and career, I'd rather speak my mind on a topic I know than be silent and watch things get worse.

Thanks. I have a NYT subscription. Fascinating piece. I think it dovetails well with the comment about touring seemingly becoming an afterthought.

Funny what happens when you spend 75 years building a world that prioritizes cars over everything else.

That said, as a Warm Showers host near enough to NYC to get requests from folks either heading cross country or down to Florida, most of my guests have been young riders. That gives me hope. They may not do it in the same numbers (demographics and all) but it seems like every generation has folks that ask, "what's over there?"

I host as well - key community on the PPP Route that I worked with ACA to develop.
So I get lots of folks when I'm home in the summer. Some young, some older.
Not surprisingly, very few middle-aged folks, but that has always made sense.

Bicycle touring isn't egalitarian.
First off, it costs money - money for the tour and money not made when touring.
Also, far more dangerous - yes, dangerous - for women, minorities, queer folk.
Most of those nice empty roads are in deep red counties.

I am pretty obviously gay. (Despite my best teenage efforts to hide it.)
I've been called "f@33ot" lots of times and was assaulted and nearly killed.
My puertorriqueña friend, Maria, was threatened in east Tennessee and feared for her life.
So, I know, firsthand.

I would love to see all that change overnight,
but much of the disparity lies in deep cultural patterns in American society.
An organization as small as ACA isn't going to alter that significantly.
It certainly doesn't mean to do nothing,
but ACA's primary mission should be cycling.

I believe that if you work to promote the magic of touring - - for all,
if you work to make touring cheap for young people with limited funds,
if you work to stitch together empty roads that GPS often fails to do,
than you can bring more people - of all shapes and colors - to touring.

My wife and I are involved in teaching bike safety to the 5th graders in our school district for seven years. It is a one to two week course depending on how the teachers can fit it into their schedules. I usually work with the kids that do not know how to ride a bike. During that short time I have worked with an increasing number of kids that do not know how to ride a bike; starting with 1 kid per class up to 5 per class in the more recent sessions. Covid may have had something to do with it, but it still is worrisome. My perception is that less kids are riding bikes. It is all connected.

Wow, fascinating article. I've been uncomfortable with many non-profits diluting their original focus/mission with this turn towards "social justice" or "DEI" and have dropped memberships or declined to join such organizations. I definitely count ACA as one of these organizations. I'm a life-member so haven't dropped membership but have certainly stopped donating.

The Radavist weighs in on the ACA situation, chatting with Casey Greene, Lael Wilcox and Andy Williamson in this article.

https://theradavist.com/whats-next-f...ng-association

I just saw the article, decided to post the link here but you beat me to it. I had no clue that Wilcox had anything to do with ACA until I saw the article.

There are two other active threads on ACA at this time, I am not checking to see if it is posted there.