STLPR0%

After four years, St. Louis inches closer to spending its Rams settlement money 44%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

6/18/2026, 4:11:29 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 18.3% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 976 faulty-reasoning hits from 556 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.1% and a BS Rank of 44% (12,331 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.30% of the article peer group.

More than three years after securing $250 million from a settlement over the Rams leaving for Los Angeles, the St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen appears on track to finally spend the money. 
Lawmakers voted 12-3 Thursday to give initial approval to a plan that directs the remaining $230 million to tornado recovery, plus investments in north St. 
Louis, downtown and critical infrastructure like water. 
A final vote is expected June 26. 
“Allocating these funds is a pivotal step toward addressing the unprecedented needs that are facing our city,” said Board of Aldermen President Megan Green, the bill’s sponsor. 
“Assembling the funds needed to fully address these issues requires a capital structure that includes the Rams settlement, state and federal funds, matching funds from philanthropic and corporate partners and other sources. 
Many of these funding partners have been waiting to see what the city is committed to and capable of doing so they can better understand how to fill in the gaps.” 
In a rare moment at the board, Green left the dais to present her legislation from the floor. 
Vice President Shane Cohn presided during the debate that lasted nearly two hours. 
Lawmakers had been on track to approve the framework for spending the settlement funds last year, but the deal fell apart in spectacular fashion after Green pushed through amendments that were not supported by other aldermen. 
A few months later, an EF3 tornado caused $1.6 billion in damage. 
North St. 
Louis was hit the worst. 
The deal sets aside more than $120 million for tornado recovery, with the vast majority going toward housing repair and preservation. 
Activists had been pushing to spend at least $150 million  one individual yelled “Fund the northside!” 
from the gallery after aldermen took the vote on Thursday. 
Downtown will receive about $55 million, including $15 million to redevelop the riverfront. 
The city will also invest in infrastructure, including $40 million for the beleaguered water division. 
A massive hole that opened up last week just north of the Dome at America’s Center was on 8th Ward Alderwoman Jami Cox Antwi’s mind as her colleagues debated the legislation. 
It clearly demonstrated the need to support water, she said, but she hoped the required detours due to interstate closures would help people understand the need to invest in north St. 
Louis as well. 
“In this time right now, where maybe for the first time you’re traveling north on Jefferson, I want you to look around, and I want you to notice what you see,” Cox Antwi said. 
And if you have a problem doing that for any reason, I think that problem alone should tell you why the northside investment components of the bill are so critically needed right now.” 
The three aldermen who voted no generally objected to how the city had divided up the money. 
Alderman Bret Narayan of the 4th Ward said the city was making a huge mistake not keeping any funds back to build up interest for future emergencies. 
And 12th Ward Alderwoman Sharon Tyus objected to downtown receiving more of the Rams settlement funds because $30 million had already gone to the convention center as part of the original settlement agreement. 
Fifth Ward Alderman Matt Devoti voted against the plan without commenting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 4.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion4.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect5.9%This article: 9.2%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias9.2%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.9%This article: 14.9%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.9%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority4.9%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.3%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion18.3%This article: 12.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question12.1%This article: 14.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 4.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 16.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination16.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

556 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers45%attributed speech305writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 27 words • 100.0% coverageMegan Green • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJami Cox Antwi • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJami Cox Antwi • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJami Cox Antwi • 34 words • 100.0% coverageJami Cox Antwi • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBret Narayan • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSharon Tyus • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bret Narayan

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words11% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Bret Narayan: 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.