confusing goals of a group with goals of a faction

The bicycle advocacy community is made up of people who support bicycle transport for the different things cycling can do. Cycling can deliver urban design goals. It can improve health. It can reduce greenhouse emissions. What is the name of the fallacy being employed when one faction argues the whole community reject an initiative because it does not deliver benefits to their faction? For example, the urban designers have told the environmentalists and health advocates that the whole community should reject an initiative that would increase bicycle transport, because it won't advance their own goals.

I don't think there is a fallacy here, rather it seems like a simple case of people arguing for their own best/self interests. To be fallacious, there has to be an error in reasoning . The faction may be using fallacious arguments, but simply asserting that their faction doesn't benefit would not be fallacious. If the faction should be representing the whole community, they need to evaluate the pros and cons of each advocacy group and make an unbiased decision. If the faction is a advocacy group, then their purpose is to represent their own interests, often at the expense of other groups.

It looks to me as though Steven is identifying five collectives: the Whole Community comprised of four smaller collectives (variously called groups, factions, communities, and advocates) whose goals are not necessary in alignment. These are: (1) bicycle advocacy community (2) urban designers (3) environmentalists (4) health advocates. Each of these smaller collectives has called upon the the other collectives acting in their roles as voting members of the Whole Community to vote against any initiative that does not benefit the goals of any of the collectives. I can't help but wonder if many of these goals might be mutually exclusive. For example, the bikers want bike paths. If the don't get them, the entire (say) urban renewal project is shut down. But the Health advocates want jogging paths. If they don't get them, the project is shut down. The urban designers want rapid transit. If they don't get it, the whole urban renewal project will be shut down. I wonder if this could be a version of the Commons Fallacy. It also occurs to me that the Whole Community is comprised of four parts that have to be in alignment for the superordinate goal to be attained. Think of it as a lock on a safe comprised of 4 tumblers. If any one of the tumblers is out of alignment, the safe cant be opened. But they can never be in alignment because some of the goals are mutually exclusive and contradictory.