St. Louis officials OK demolition of Railway Exchange garage and former Charlie Gitto's 53%

By Chad Davis0%

4/29/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Sunk Cost Effect, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 22.3% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 359 faulty-reasoning hits from 444 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.6% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,440 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.30% of the article peer group.

St. 
Louis may have found a partial solution to issues at the abandoned Railway Exchange building and properties nearby. 
The city is paying $78,000 a year for security of the main building in the Downtown neighborhood. 
Officials with the city's Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority voted in favor of a plan to pave the way to demolish almost every building on the block near the Railway Exchange building except for the Gill Building on the corner of North 7th and Olive streets. 
The vote on Tuesday was 3-1 with one abstention. 
"That leaves any structures, the parking garage and the Charlie Gitto's building to possibly be demoed moving forward," St. 
Louis Development Corporation Vice President of Economic Incentives Zachary Wilson said. 
"This just helps with future boards, possibly the preservation board and planning commissions, if need be to speed up the process in some way." 
Last year, the LCRA purchased the former Charlie Gitto's restaurant and the parking garage south of the exchange building for about $2.6 million. 
Wilson said he hopes to speak with the board in the next few months about design requirements for any redevelopment plan. 
The city is attempting to take control of the Railway Exchange building itself via eminent domain for about $4.7 million. 
The Railway Exchange building, the nearby garage and surrounding spaces have long been the site of crimes, including frequent break-ins and vandalism. 
"The purpose here is to basically create an entire city block for future redevelopment," SLDC Deputy Executive Director Rob Orr said. 
"If this redevelopment plan is approved by this board, it still has to go to the planning commission, which would then take it up, and demolition could not occur without the planning commission's approval of the redevelopment plan amendments." 
It's still unclear if the plan needs to also go through the preservation board once a demolition company is selected. 
The former Charlie Gitto's building suffered significant water damage once the restaurant closed, Orr said. 
The development corporation is still trying to secure funding to demolish the garage. 
Orr said the city also hopes to amend the redevelopment plan to use federal coronavirus relief money to demolish the skybridge. 
SLDC is considering options to handle the underground section of the garage. 
"We look at this and discuss this almost probably four or five days a week, still looking for answers," Orr said. 
"We have some things that I really don't want to go into at this point, but there are some opportunities I think that we have. 
It's just a matter of time and getting everyone on the same page." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Chad Davis: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 2.0%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.0%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: 22.3%Chad Davis: 8.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect22.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.9%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 5.2%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect5.2%This article: 14.2%Chad Davis: 4.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias14.2%This article: 2.9%Chad Davis: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 5.0%Chad Davis: 9.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias5.0%This article: 5.6%Chad Davis: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias5.6%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: 4.7%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 3.8%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.8%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: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%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: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 9.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%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: 0.0%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.9%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%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: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%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: 4.3%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%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: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%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%

444 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers50%attributed speech221writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageZachary Wilson • 11 words • 0.0% coverageZachary Wilson • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageZachary Wilson • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRob Orr • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRob Orr • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRob Orr • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRob Orr • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSLDC • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRob Orr • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRob Orr • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRob Orr • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rob Orr

65%flagged-word coverage
155 attributed words70% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Rob Orr: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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