STLPR0%

St. Louis aldermen OK 90% water rate increase by 2032 to stabilize the utility’s finances 24%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

6/18/2026, 4:26:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 20.1% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 415 faulty-reasoning hits from 314 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.7% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,725 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.40% of the article peer group.

Water rates are going up in the city of St. 
Louis. 
The St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen on Thursday sent legislation to Mayor Cara Spencer that phases in an increase of about 90% over six years. 
The first rate hike of 18% takes effect on July 1. 
Alderman Michael Browning of the 9th Ward, the legislation’s sponsor, thanked his colleagues for supporting what he has called a “generational investment” in the city’s water system. 
Without the hikes, the Water Division would not have had enough money to cover critical expenses such as treatment chemicals and electricity to power its water treatment and pumping facilities. 
Seven years of deficit spending have wiped out any reserves. 
In addition to allowing the division to cover expenses, the rate increases will allow it to restore reserves and start building up the capacity to pay for $700 million in capital improvement needs. 
The utility will also receive about $40 million from the Rams settlement funds and another $2.3 million in reallocated ARPA funds. 
For the first time, the city will charge lower-income residents an “affordability rate.” 
Exact eligibility terms are not laid out in the legislation, but they will likely be based on income, eligibility for other utility relief programs or being affected by a disaster like the May 2025 tornado. 
The city will also be allowed to negotiate a higher water rate for large new customers like data centers. 
A discounted rate paid by the city’s hospitals as well as the St. 
Louis Zoo and Art Museum is also being phased out. 
Starting Jan. 1, they would pay the same amount as other metered customers. 
Separate legislation that would require the installation of meters in new construction or after the partial or full replacement of a water line received first-round approval on Thursday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.1%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect17.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 3.2%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect3.2%This article: 10.5%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%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: 8.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect8.6%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma9.6%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%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: 8.6%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion8.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 20.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.1%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: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.1%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: 8.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote8.6%This article: 8.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection8.6%This article: 4.5%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice4.5%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%

314 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.6%attributed speech287writer 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 • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Browning • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Browning

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words100% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Michael Browning: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Michael Browning: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Michael Browning: 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.