More work to be done on tornado recovery, St. Louis aldermen say as session ends 39%

By Chad Davis0%

3/23/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Self-Serving Bias, with Red Herring as the most egregious example at 15% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 447 faulty-reasoning hits from 619 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.2% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,549 of 21,908 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.80% of the article peer group.

Members of the St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen said that while they passed several tornado aid bills this past legislative session, more needs to be done to help victims next session. 
The board highlighted its legislative agenda during a press conference after the last full meeting before the end of the session on April 20. 
Much of the board’s priorities were centered on recovery efforts after the May tornado that hit north St. 
Louis neighborhoods and parts of the Central West End. 
“Despite receiving $146 million in aid from [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] and $100 million from the State of Missouri, we know that more funding is needed to address the nearly $2 billion price tag of the May 16 tornado of last year,” St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen President Megan Green said. 
Board bills tapped Rams settlement interest funds this session: $30 million to create a tornado relief fund and about $9 million for tornado-hit housing. 
One bill added about $1 million in accrued Rams interest to the impacted tenants fund, and another bill appropriated almost $3.4 million for winter shelters. 
The city started demolishing the first two homes destroyed by the tornado Friday. 
City officials said demolitions will increase as time goes on. 
“We have years of work ahead of us,” Alderwoman Shameem Clark Hubbard said. 
“A lot of the demolition is getting ready to ramp up, and there's a lot of questions around that, not just the health aspect of it, but the geographic aspect of it.” 
Green also highlighted the board’s housing bills, including legalizing accessory dwelling units. 
The board also passed a bill Friday to create an economic justice scorecard that Green said would standardize developments across the city. 
Next session, the board will have to address questions surrounding calls from the St. 
Louis Board of Police Commissioners to increase the police budget. 
Green, members of the board and Mayor Cara Spencer have criticized the $250 million proposed budget and have said the increase would leave the city in financial turmoil. 
Aldermen passed a resolution last week calling for the board to negotiate the budget in good faith. 
“Every year, departments ask us for more money than we can give them,” Green said. 
“What was atypical is getting one department having a request that is $50 million over what the baseline was that we gave them.” 
Green said she opposes giving the department more than what is required by state statute for as long as the police department is under state control. 
The state requires that a portion of the general fund go toward police. 
“We have to recognize that we have employees in the city right now that are making 30% less than the market standard,” Green said. 
“We have to look at the entirety of the city and its impacts, and not just one department.” 
Budget Chair Rasheen Aldridge said he plans to reach out to police board members in the coming months so they can speak in front of the budget committee. 
Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier added that in her time in office, she’s always seen a police budget increase. 
“What I don't want us to miss is the importance of democracy, that there are two places in this entire country that don't have authority over their own police department, that residents of the city of St. 
Louis are being mandated to pay for something that they do not have decision-making authority over,” Sonnier said. 
“I don't want us to skip over that point, and I don't want it to be a false narrative that this board collectively has done anything to prevent giving officer support.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Chad Davis: 8.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect10.8%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 4.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 9.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Chad Davis: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 5.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man5.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 15.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring15.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.4%Chad Davis: 9.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion14.4%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.7%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal2.7%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.2%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading4.2%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 3.6%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

619 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers59%attributed speech256writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSt. Louis Board of Aldermen • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCity officials • 10 words • 0.0% coverageShameem Clark Hubbard • 13 words • 0.0% coverageShameem Clark Hubbard • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRasheen Aldridge • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAlisha Sonnier • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAlisha Sonnier • 37 words • 0.0% coverageAlisha Sonnier • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAlisha Sonnier • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Alisha Sonnier

83%flagged-word coverage
103 attributed words28% of attributed speech25% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Politically Left Leaning B-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Alisha Sonnier: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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