STLPR0%

Data center opposition group sues Festus and proposed developer 55%

By Katie Grawitch0%

4/10/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.2% saturation with 136 hits. Analysis detected 898 faulty-reasoning hits from 561 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53% and a BS Rank of 55% (9,883 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.80% of the article peer group.

The data center opposition group Wake Up JeffCo and four property owners filed a lawsuit in St. 
Louis County Thursday against the City of Festus and data center developer CRG. 
The suit aims to reverse two decisions by the city: one to rezone the area set aside for a potential AI data center project, the other to enter into a contract that sets requirements for the developer. 
The lawsuit comes two days after all four incumbent city council candidates in Festus were ousted, according to final unofficial election results. 
Mary Fakes is one of the plaintiffs who lives about 300 yards from the proposed development. 
She said the project has disrupted her life. 
“When this began, we automatically knew we could not, in good conscience, turn this house over to my daughter to live in an area that potentially could have hazard to her health,” Fakes said. 
“I am very hopeful through this litigation today, that someday, in the near future, my daughter will be able to take over our homestead.” 
Fakes said she is particularly concerned about the amount of water needed to cool hyperscale data centers like the proposed Festus project. 
Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimate these hyperscale facilities will consume between 60 and 124 billion liters of water by 2028. 
Researchers at the University of California Riverside and Caltech estimate that AI data centers could cost upwards of $10 billion in public water infrastructure nationwide as AI demand grows. 
The plaintiffs argue city officials knowingly withheld information about the potential development that was within the public interest. 
The suit alleges that the city had unlawful private meetings with developers and attempted to evade requirements of the Missouri Sunshine Law, which aims to ensure government transparency 
Steve Jeffery is the attorney representing the Festus residents and plaintiffs in a similar suit in Montgomery County. 
He said he believes city officials were intentionally meeting in smaller groups to avoid making data center discussions a matter of public record. 
“Apparently, the city believed that if they met instead in small groups, of like two or three at a time, that they wouldn't have to comply with any of those Sunshine Law requirements,” Jeffery said. 
In correspondence posted publicly on the City of Festus’ website, officials acknowledged efforts to keep conversations about the project under wraps. 
Some officials’ names were redacted before the documents were released publicly. 
“For the proposed annexation, since it's volunteer, we don't have to have a public hearing, correct?” 
an official said in an Oct. 1 text. 
“I don't think that's going to draw much interest but I could be wrong. 
Because driving highway speed doesn't give a (person) a lot of time to read the sign, they may think it's a construction sign.” 
Lori Merriman is the founder of Wake Up JeffCo and lives near the proposed data center site. 
She said the lawsuit validates months of pushback against the city. 
“We have all these people showing up in droves, but the council will not listen to you,” Merriman said. 
“We want the city council to be transparent with us and actually care about what we say.” 
Residents recently decried the $6 billion proposed data center project at a heated public meeting where city council approved a framework of requirements for data center developer CRG. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Katie Grawitch: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Katie Grawitch: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias8.7%This article: 5.0%Katie Grawitch: 8.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect5.0%This article: 6.1%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion6.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Katie Grawitch: 4.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias4.3%This article: 6.1%Katie Grawitch: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 24.2%Katie Grawitch: 8.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias24.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Katie Grawitch: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.2%Katie Grawitch: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority3.2%This article: 2.9%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Katie Grawitch: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.4%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon3.4%This article: 12.5%Katie Grawitch: 6.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion12.5%This article: 6.2%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question6.2%This article: 3.9%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.4%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal1.4%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.3%Katie Grawitch: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.9%Katie Grawitch: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote3.9%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.3%Katie Grawitch: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice14.3%This article: 3.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination3.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Grawitch: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Katie Grawitch: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.1%

561 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers44%attributed speech316writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMary Fakes • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMary Fakes • 34 words • 100.0% coverageMary Fakes • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMary Fakes • 22 words • 0.0% coverageLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory • 23 words • 100.0% coverageUniversity of California Riverside • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Jeffery • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Jeffery • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageLori Merriman • 11 words • 0.0% coverageLori Merriman • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLori Merriman • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lori Merriman

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words19% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+36.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lori Merriman: 36.2%36.2%Biased Writer Voice-14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Lori Merriman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Lori Merriman: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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