NY Post89%

Altadena could see temporary relief from predatory developers as new home offers signs of hope 76%

By Daniel Farr69%

7/2/2026, 5:15:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Loss Aversion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 31.2% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 922 faulty-reasoning hits from 433 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.1% and a BS Rank of 76% (4,978 of 20,370 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.60% of the article peer group.

Altadena residents still reeling from the devastating Eaton Fire scored a pair of victories this week  one in Sacramento and another back home  as lawmakers moved to shield the community from developers while a new modular home rose from the ashes of a burned-down landmark. 
California lawmakers on Wednesday unanimously advanced Senate Bill 1090, legislation supporters say would protect fire survivors from opportunistic developers seeking to reshape the devastated neighborhood before longtime residents have a chance to rebuild. 
Just a day earlier, recovery efforts became visible in Altadena when a crane lowered a modular accessory dwelling unit onto the site of the former Bunny Museum, which was destroyed in the fire. 
The demonstration home  built by Team AB Builds  is intended to showcase how modular construction could help speed rebuilding across the community. 
“This is important community-driven legislation,” bill author state Sen. 
Sasha Renee Perez, D-Pasadena, said in Sacramento. 
The bill would temporarily exempt Altadena from state zoning laws that allow multi-unit development on lots formerly occupied by single-family homes, giving displaced homeowners more time to rebuild before investors can capitalize on the destruction. 
“It will protect Eaton Fire survivors and allow them the time they need to rebuild their community without the overpowering influence of predatory developers looking to take advantage of the devastation and suffering caused by the Eaton fire,” Perez said. 
The proposal stems from the aftermath of the Jan. 
7, 2025, Eaton Fire, which scorched 14,921 acres, destroyed 9,418 structures across Altadena and Pasadena, and wiped out roughly 6,000 single-family homes in Altadena alone. 
Perez said survivors are increasingly vulnerable to lowball offers from speculators eager to buy up damaged properties. 
“These survivors are asking for time to rebuild our community,” She said. 
“I want to be crystal clear. 
These laws were not intended to rebuild a community that has been devastated by fire or a natural disaster.” 
Resident Ania Haigwood said preserving Altadena's identity is just as important as rebuilding homes. 
“The entire neighborhood has always had a wonderful character which has made it very special,” she told The Post. 
Supporters note that survivors of the January 2025 Palisades Fire received similar rebuilding protections because their neighborhoods were designated high fire severity zones  a classification Altadena did not receive. 
SB 1090 has already cleared the state Senate and now heads to the Assembly Local Government Committee. 
If approved there, the measure will advance to the full Assembly before landing on Gov. 
Gavin Newsom’s desk for a final decision. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.9%Daniel Farr: 3.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Daniel Farr: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic17.3%This article: 6.9%Daniel Farr: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.2%Daniel Farr: 12.8%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect31.2%This article: 18.9%Daniel Farr: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion18.9%This article: 3.2%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Daniel Farr: 17.6%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias23.6%This article: 4.4%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Daniel Farr: 1.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.5%Daniel Farr: 1.7%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.1%Daniel Farr: 3.1%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority2.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Daniel Farr: 4.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.9%Daniel Farr: 8.4%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion27.9%This article: 4.4%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 6.9%Daniel Farr: 2.3%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Daniel Farr: 2.0%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.8%Daniel Farr: 1.7%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.3%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%Daniel Farr: 2.5%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 2.1%Daniel Farr: 1.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.1%This article: 3.5%Daniel Farr: 12.4%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice3.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.3%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.9%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

433 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers22%attributed speech336writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSasha Renee Perez • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageSasha Renee Perez • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageSasha Renee Perez • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAnia Haigwood • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAnia Haigwood • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sasha Renee Perez

89%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words66% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Sasha Renee Perez: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Sasha Renee Perez: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Sasha Renee Perez: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.