STLPR0%

Festus residents opposed a data center. Their effort became national news 

By Danny Wicentowski0%

4/24/2026, 2:22:37 PM

BS Summary: The article has not yet been analyzed.

The debate over a data center project in Festus took a dramatic turn earlier this month when residents voted out every city council member seeking reelection who had approved the project. 
The electoral message became national news, with Politico describing it as “the latest example of growing public backlash against cities agreeing to host hyperscale data centers over the objections of residents.” 
The proposed site of the Festus data center would cover 360 acres only a few minutes' drive from Erica Carter’s home. 
In November, she attended her first town meeting about the plan. 
At the time she had never heard of a data center. 
Some of her neighbors were already organizing to oppose it. 
“One of the townspeople kind of led the meeting and explained what a data center was,” she recalled. 
“He said, ‘We're going to need people speaking to the media, people going to town meetings, people organizing groups and running petitions and organizing talks and all these things.’ 
And I thought, ‘Oh, gross. 
This is not for me. 
I don't want any part of any of this.’” 
She said her mind changed when she witnessed a presentation on the project by Clayco CEO Bob Clark. 
“I became very angry,” she said. 
“I had a bad feeling in the bottom of my stomach, like this man is not telling the truth about the things that he's trying to sell us on.” 
Carter wasn’t the only Festus resident to feel that way. 
On March 30, hundreds packed a high school gym to demand the city council reject the data center. 
Instead, the council approved it 6-2. 
Days later, four of the council members who had voted for the data center lost their reelection bids. 
Last week, as the election backlash reshaped Festus’ government, a fifth council member resigned. 
After months of debate over the data project, Carter said she anticipated that the election would send a clear message. 
“The general consensus is we don't want this. 
So it wasn't a surprise. 
We had more than double the turnout for our municipal election,” she said. 
“[The incumbents] made their bed, and they had to lay in it.” 
Despite the election results, the data center in Festus is moving forward. 
Standing in its way is a lawsuit filed this month by a data center opposition group of Festus residents called Wake Up JeffCo. 
The lawsuit alleges the city council violated open meeting laws. 
It seeks to reverse key decisions the previous council made to advance the project. 
The lawsuit also includes copies of text message exchanges between unnamed city officials discussing the data center plan months before its details became public. 
In one exchange, an official referred to the project’s opponents as “a sideshow of uneducated people.” 
That and other text messages  as well as months of secrecy  are examples of Festus elected officials’ disregard for its citizens, said Steve Jeffrey, who represents Wake Up JeffCo in its lawsuit. 
“The public gets very upset,” he said. 
“They get very angry. 
And as demonstrated a couple of weeks ago in Festus, angry people make angry voters. 
And angry voters extract their vengeance at the polling booth.” 
In this episode, "St. 
Louis on the Air" goes behind the headlines of the Festus data center debate and the national attention. 
Along with Carter and Jeffrey, STLPR reporters Kavahn Mansouri and Katie Grawitch share insights from their reporting and interviews. 
To hear the full conversation about the Festus data center with resident Erica Carter, attorney Steve Jeffrey and STLPR reporters Kavahn Mansouri and Katie Grawitch  including an update on a data center project in St. 
Louis  listen to “St. 
Louis on the Air” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube, or click the play button below. 
“St. 
Louis on the Air” brings you the stories of St. 
Louis and the people who live, work and create in our region. 
The show is produced by Miya Norfleet, Emily Woodbury, Danny Wicentowski, Elaine Cha and Alex Heuer. 
Layla Halilbasic is our production assistant. 
The audio engineer is Aaron Doerr. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Danny Wicentowski: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 4.1%Danny Wicentowski: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 3.6%Danny Wicentowski: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Danny Wicentowski: 5.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 1.7%Danny Wicentowski: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion1.7%This article: 1.7%Danny Wicentowski: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Danny Wicentowski: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 30.9%Danny Wicentowski: 4.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias30.9%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Danny Wicentowski: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.3%This article: 2.6%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.6%This article: 2.9%Danny Wicentowski: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 3.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%Danny Wicentowski: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.8%Danny Wicentowski: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority2.8%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Danny Wicentowski: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Danny Wicentowski: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 13.0%Danny Wicentowski: 5.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.8%Danny Wicentowski: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.9%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.9%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.7%Danny Wicentowski: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal13.7%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.8%Danny Wicentowski: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.8%This article: 6.8%Danny Wicentowski: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection6.8%This article: 12.4%Danny Wicentowski: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice12.4%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Danny Wicentowski: 4.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.6%

687 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers33%attributed speech457writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coveragePolitico • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageErica Carter • 5 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 5 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 6 words • 100.0% coverageErica Carter • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 8 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 5 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 13 words • 0.0% coverageErica Carter • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Jeffrey • 34 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Jeffrey • 7 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Jeffrey • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Jeffrey • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Jeffrey • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageSTLPR • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Politico

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words13% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+96.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Politico: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -22.3 ptsWriter: 22.3%Politico: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Politico: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Politico: 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.