STLPR0%

St. Louis police get less than they asked for in city’s $1.4B budget 14%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

6/26/2026, 9:28:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Self-Serving Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.8% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 740 faulty-reasoning hits from 508 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.6% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,278 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.20% of the article peer group.

The budget to fund the City of St. 
Louis for the next 12 months is on its way to Mayor Cara Spencer. 
The Board of Aldermen on Friday approved the spending plan that takes effect July 1 by the narrowest of margins  8-6 with one abstention. 
“I think there is a lot of discontentment within city government about the police board in particular, and their actions and the implications on our budget,” said board President Megan Green. 
“With that said, there are a lot of really good things in this budget.” 
The $1.4 billion spending plan is basically flat from last year's. 
It includes funds to give all city workers 3% raises, with some of the lowest-paid employees getting up to a 45% increase. 
The City Emergency Management Agency will see a $300,000 increase for more staffing and emergency planning, and there is more money to demolish vacant buildings. 
Code Blue, the city’s winter response plan for individuals experiencing homelessness, is funded, as is the program to provide attorneys to individuals facing eviction. 
The city also found funds for its tiny homes effort. 
The St. 
Louis Metropolitan Police Department will get $220 million total to spend in the fiscal year  an increase from last year, but not the $250 million it requested. 
Much of the concern on the Board of Aldermen was over a last-minute increase in the salaries of St. 
Louis police commanders, which triggered a required increase for higher-ranking firefighters under the city’s pay parity. 
“I have a balanced relationship with the police, but I do not have a relationship that believes a board or anybody else should be able to direct our budget,” said 12th Ward Alderwoman Sharon Tyus, one of the six members to vote no. 
The board found money in the police budget to cover the firefighter increases for the first year, but that did not include the cost of benefits or the salaries going forward. 
There are already three lawsuits challenging the state takeover of the SLMPD, and the budget when it’s signed may trigger additional litigation. 
Under the law reestablishing state oversight, the police board officially outlines its expenses to the city in February, and the city is obligated to appropriate that money. 
Police Chief Robert Tracy was hesitant on Friday to say whether he could meet the needs of the department with the money provided. 
“It’s under litigation now. 
I've been advised to possibly stay away from talking about specifics,” he said. 
“This is a process.” 
Green, who filed one of three lawsuits over state control, agreed. 
“Ultimately, all of these issues are going to be solved through litigation,” she said. 
“Whether it is the constitutionality of the state takeover of police itself, or the funding levels, it’s going to be up to the courts.” 
Courts rejected a fourth case filed by the State of Missouri that sought to force the city to provide an additional $68 million to the police department by June 30. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.8%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias7.3%This article: 7.9%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 7.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion7.9%This article: 2.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias7.1%This article: 27.8%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias27.8%This article: 8.5%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%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: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 4.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.9%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.5%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma7.5%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: 6.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization6.1%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: 8.3%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion8.3%This article: 5.5%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question5.5%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.6%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: 2.8%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.9%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: 4.3%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading4.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice7.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%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%

508 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers36%attributed speech327writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSharon Tyus • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Tracy • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Tracy • 4 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Tracy • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Tracy • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMegan Green • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Megan Green

88%flagged-word coverage
94 attributed words52% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.2 ptsWriter: 12.2%Megan Green: 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.