Festus council approves $6 billion data center plan despite massive public pushback 76%

By Kavahn Mansouri59%

3/31/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 38.1% saturation with 212 hits. Analysis detected 1,219 faulty-reasoning hits from 556 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.8% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,296 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.80% of the article peer group.

Through a hail of jeers, curse words and complaints, members of the Festus City Council approved an ordinance marking a big step toward a highly controversial plan to build a $6 billion data center in the area. 
Festus High School gym’s rafters filled with the voices of residents who oppose the project Monday night at a special meeting of the city council. 
Council members approved an ordinance creating a framework of requirements for developer CRG, the data center arm of area developer Clayco, by a vote of 6-2. 
The ordinance locks in rules the developer must follow if the data center is built, like requiring CRG to pay for infrastructure upgrades to water, sewage, streets and more. 
Around 25 members of the public were allotted five minutes each to comment on the ordinance before the vote. 
Lauren Albers lives near the location of the proposed data center, just three houses down from where CRG has said it will offer buyouts to homeowners. 
Like many who spoke at the meeting, she said she believed the city council had already made up its mind on the proposal. 
“I am not against growth,” she said. 
“I'm against putting data centers between homes. 
I am against rushing into development before residents get real information, real answers and a real voice.” 
Thirty-nine individuals signed up to speak, but Mayor Sam Richards cut off public comment after two hours before the council hastily moved the ordinance to a vote. 
Staci Templeton and Brian Wehner, council members who represent Festus’s second ward, voted against the ordinance in what many audience members called a “surprise move.” 
After the vote, members of the council and representatives with Clayco CRG left through the back doors of the gymnasium as angered residents lined up against a wall of Festus police officers. 
The vote is the latest in a series of incidents between city officials and residents who oppose the data center proposal. 
In recent months, opponents expressed concerns about transparency  including meetings with CRG they alleged were held without public knowledge of city residents. 
The issue was brought up several times by speakers. 
“You are putting the city at risk,” said resident Matthew Ramsbottom. 
See more photos from the meeting by STLPR Visuals Editor Brian Munoz. 
Ordinance requires CRG to pay city 
CRG hopes to build the data center on roughly 360 acres north of Highway 67. 
City Attorney Brian Malone outlined the possible benefits of the project. 
He said, even with a five year tax abatement, the project could garner $80 million annually in tax money for Festus and nearby taxing districts. 
Malone said, without the ordinance, the city would lose out on a measurable portion of tax dollars and control over other parts of the development. 
“We would lose a significant measure of control over the site configuration, and would lose the environmental commitments that this agreement provides,” Malone said. 
As part of the agreement with the city, CRG will pay the city $3 million each year on “community development” for five years and then $5 million a year for another five years. 
Additionally, CRG will enter into an agreement with Ameren Missouri, ensuring it will pay for its energy use and any additional energy infrastructure needed to serve the data center. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.4%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias9.4%This article: 4.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 8.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 4.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect19.1%This article: 8.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion8.8%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias7.2%This article: 3.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 34.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias34.9%This article: 5.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority2.0%This article: 4.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma4.5%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 19.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion19.8%This article: 7.4%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question7.4%This article: 3.8%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division4.5%This article: 4.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal4.1%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.3%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.3%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.1%This article: 2.3%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 38.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice38.1%This article: 3.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination3.1%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.2%

556 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers37%attributed speech353writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Albers • 26 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Albers • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Albers • 7 words • 100.0% coverageLauren Albers • 7 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Albers • 17 words • 100.0% coverageMayor Sam Richards • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Ramsbottom • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Malone • 11 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Malone • 25 words • 100.0% coverageBrian Malone • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Malone • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matthew Ramsbottom

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words5.4% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+93.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Matthew Ramsbottom: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-45.3 ptsWriter: 45.3%Matthew Ramsbottom: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Matthew Ramsbottom: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.7 ptsWriter: 1.7%Matthew Ramsbottom: 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.