STLPR0%

St. Louis aldermen move forward with Rams settlement bill as tempers flare over tornado funding 38%

By Kavahn Mansouri59%

6/10/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 26.7% saturation with 179 hits. Analysis detected 1,100 faulty-reasoning hits from 670 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.7% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,754 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.80% of the article peer group.

Threats of political retribution, chants of “shame” and a hailstorm of jeers echoed out of the second-floor Kennedy Room in City Hall on Tuesday, as a hearing on changes to a bill divvying up St. 
Louis’ Rams settlement funds stretched on for seven hours. 
Residents and community groups clashed with members of the Board of Aldermen's Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee over funding for tornado recovery and downtown revitalization during the marathon meeting over final amendments to Board Bill 22, which allocates $230 million of settlement funding to different city goals. 
“We want $150 million minimum for north side, and if that amendment doesn’t come up today y’all can quit your jobs,” said Ward 7 resident Kaitlyn Killgo. 
The funds are slated to bolster the city’s tornado relief efforts in north St. 
Louis, help revitalize downtown with an injection of funding and take early steps toward fixing the city’s more than $700 million water infrastructure problem. 
The original proposal presented by Mayor Cara Spencer and the board allocated $110 million to tornado recovery, $65 million to repairing water infrastructure and $55 million to an effort to revitalize downtown St. 
Louis. 
But for weeks, residents of north city and advocacy groups have called for a minimum of $150 million to go toward recovery efforts for the areas impacted by last year’s May 16 tornado that damaged or destroyed more than 5,000 buildings on the north side. 
Those calls for additional funding ultimately fell short. 
The committee accepted nine amendments, one of which added $10 million of funds originally planned for the city’s reserves to focus on tornado repair programs and rental assistance programs. 
Two other amendments moved an additional $15 million away from the city’s original plan to put millions into its reserve funds. 
Another $10 million will go to the city’s water infrastructure repair, and $5 million is set to help the city tackle its longstanding, rampant vacant building problems. 
Advocates said the roughly $125 million for tornado recovery wasn’t enough. 
They rained down criticism on the committee members, vowing to unseat them in future elections over the bill. 
They also took aim at the allocation of settlement funds for downtown that business groups like Greater St. 
Louis Inc. have said they’ll match. 
“Y’all are about to screw them over,” said Action St. 
Louis Executive Director Kayla Reed, whose organization has been heavily active in tornado recovery efforts. 
“For what? 
Downtown? 
They don’t need it.” 
A handful of business owners spoke in support of the current allocation toward downtown, calling it a needed investment in the once booming heart of the city. 
Groups like Greater St. 
Louis Inc. say the funds could spark a turnaround for the area that has faced increasing turbulence in recent decades. 
Speakers repeatedly levied similar criticisms at the committee over the course of the meeting. 
In total, members added nine amendments and gave initial approval to Board Bill 22. 
Other amendments included tweaks to language in certain sections of the bill, renamed the downtown fund to the Downtown Neighborhood Plan Implementation Fund and clarified other fund uses. 
“Investing in downtown will drive growth that provides sustained funding for services and support of recovery efforts in the long term,” said Greater St. 
Louis Inc. head Ron Kitchens. 
Board of Aldermen President Megan Green said she agrees with critics of the bill that the current allotment of funds isn’t enough to make north St. 
Louis whole, but added the bill is a starting point. 
She also called for philanthropic and business communities to step up to help the neighborhoods in the tornado zone. 
“Let it be known that as we are putting forth our money as a city I hope that this encourages our corporate and philanthropic money to see the investment we are making in the north side and rise to the occasion,” Green said. 
The bill will now head back to the Board of Aldermen for a second reading. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic14.9%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%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: 19.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect19.7%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 26.7%Kavahn Mansouri: 5.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias26.7%This article: 6.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 23.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias23.9%This article: 3.9%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias3.9%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: 2.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias2.1%This article: 4.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem1.5%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma4.0%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: 0.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.1%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon2.1%This article: 6.4%Kavahn Mansouri: 9.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion6.4%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.6%Kavahn Mansouri: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 3.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.1%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.1%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground1.5%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: 4.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 1.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 22.5%Kavahn Mansouri: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice22.5%This article: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%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: 0.0%Kavahn Mansouri: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

670 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers23%attributed speech517writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageKaitlyn Killgo • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKayla Reed • 10 words • 100.0% coverageKayla Reed • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKayla Reed • 2 words • 0.0% coverageKayla Reed • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kaitlyn Killgo

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words18% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kaitlyn Killgo: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.2 ptsWriter: 29.2%Kaitlyn Killgo: 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.