A $10 billion data center proposal vanished after a local official told the developer the process would have to unfold in public 2%

By Tom Kertscher9% Wisconsin Watch18%

8/3/2026, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 18% saturation with 91 hits. Analysis detected 517 faulty-reasoning hits from 505 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 4.6% and a BS Rank of 2% (27,764 of 28,109 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.80% of the article peer group.

It didn’t get much attention at the time, but last fall an out-of-state developer proposed an artificial intelligence data center 35 miles north of Madison in Columbia County. 
At $10 billion, it would have been the third-largest data center to come to Wisconsin. 
The Maryland-based Stonebridge real estate development company isn’t saying why it stopped exploring a site in Pacific, a town of about 2,800 people. 
But town chair Steven Pate told Wisconsin Watch there was no follow-up after he told Stonebridge executive Douglas Firstenberg that the proposal would have to be aired publicly. 
“You’re going to talk to me, you’re going to talk to all five (town board members) and it’s going to be a public meeting,” Pate said he recalled telling Firstenberg in what he said was their only conversation. 
The first mention of the possible data center came last November in a local news report about a solar farm. 
Columbia County planning director Kurt Calkins said in the article that a developer was exploring a $10 billion data center in Pacific with 400 permanent jobs and an opening in 2027. 
Nothing more ever became public. 
Here’s the rest of the story. 
Madison real estate attorney Kevin Ramakrishna made the first contact with Columbia County last August, according to emails Wisconsin Watch obtained from the county under the state public records law. 
Ramakrishna, who represented Stonebridge, wrote that he and Firstenberg first met with county officials in October. 
The next month, according to Ramakrishna, Firstenberg met with Pate. 
The Pacific town clerk said she had no emails related to any data center. 
Stonebridge has since accelerated its involvement with data centers in other parts of the country. 
The company is promoting its plans for a $15 billion, 569-acre complex on the site of a former dynamite factory northwest of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. 
And it has won initial approval for a $2.6 billion, 1,300-acre data center in Fort Meade, near Tampa, Florida. 
Firstenberg and Ramakrishna didn’t reply to requests for comment. 
Calkins said the county hasn’t heard from Stonebridge in months. 
Although Stonebridge’s interest appears dead, Columbia County is bracing for more data center proposals. 
Columbia County Board Supervisor Denise Brusveen introduced a policy change, adopted by the board in July, that prohibits supervisors from signing nondisclosure agreements regarding data centers. 
The use of data center NDAs by local communities was revealed by Wisconsin Watch in January. 
“I wanted to be very clear to the public that they should be able to trust us,” Brusveen said. 
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. 
Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup. 
A $10 billion data center proposal vanished after a local official told the developer the process would have to unfold in public is a post from Wisconsin Watch , a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. 
Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.9%Tom Kertscher: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.7%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 1.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Tom Kertscher: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Tom Kertscher: 3.3%Wisconsin Watch: 3.1%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.1%Tom Kertscher: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Tom Kertscher: 1.7%Wisconsin Watch: 2.4%Optimism Bias2.8%This article: 4.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Pessimism Bias4.0%This article: 1.8%Tom Kertscher: 3.0%Wisconsin Watch: 3.8%Negativity Bias1.8%This article: 1.4%Tom Kertscher: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Tom Kertscher: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 4.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Primacy Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 1.4%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Tom Kertscher: 2.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.9%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.8%Tom Kertscher: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion3.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.0%Tom Kertscher: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.5%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.5%Unattributed Quote5.5%This article: 7.5%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection7.5%This article: 10.5%Tom Kertscher: 2.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice10.5%This article: 3.2%Tom Kertscher: 0.5%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Indoctrination3.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Kertscher: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Tom Kertscher: 2.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.2%

505 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech379writer words
Selected voice

Denise Brusveen

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words15% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.0 ptsWriter: 14.0%Denise Brusveen: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Denise Brusveen: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Denise Brusveen: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Denise Brusveen: 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.