STLPR0%

Alderwoman Schweitzer on why data center near the Armory stoked ire among constituents 36%

By Jason Rosenbaum0%

5/4/2026, 5:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Pessimism Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.1% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 916 faulty-reasoning hits from 536 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.1% and a BS Rank of 36% (14,054 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.20% of the article peer group.

When the St. 
Louis Board of Public Service approved a conditional use permit for a data center in Midtown, it propelled the city into a debate that has stoked enormous passion around the country and throughout the St. 
Louis region. 
St. 
Louis Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer said she’s seen these big reactions firsthand. 
She said on “The Politically Speaking Hour on St. 
Louis on the Air” that some of the fiercest opponents of data centers live in her south St. 
Louis-based 1st Ward. 
She said she also represents people trying to make the data center a reality. 
“I think the No. 1 concern people have around data centers is the environmental impact of data centers  as well as things like, will these affect their utility bills? 
Will they affect how much they're paying for energy, and what energy needs exist within the grid?” 
Schweitzer said. 
“And then there's things like the tax revenue, the jobs created, the ability for a data center to create vibrancy, or make vibrancy go away in areas if they're done poorly. 
So there's just so many different things to think about.” 
Schweitzer penned a lengthy post on Facebook detailing concerns about the data center near the Armory. 
Among them was the fact that the Board of Public Service approved the conditional use permit before the city’s Planning Commission could complete regulations for data centers. 
And while Schweitzer emphasized that the conditions for the data center are much better than what was originally proposed, she added there were at least five possible guidelines that were not included that would have made the entire deal stronger. 
One of them wouldn’t have allowed testing diesel generators during periods of bad air quality. 
Another would have increased data center’s renewable energy targets. 
“The conditional use permit that passed to the Board of Public Service, the improvement is incredible,” Schweitzer said. 
“But I think when the draft regulations that the Planning Commission is discussing are posted soon you'll see that there's more that could have been put on this project.” 
Data centers have become huge local government issues throughout the St. 
Louis region, particularly in Franklin County, Festus and St. 
Charles. 
Schweitzer said there are two things that are likely driving significant opposition to the facilities: the fact that they consume so much power and water and how data centers are associated with artificial intelligence technology that may affect people’s livelihoods. 
She also said she’s concerned that technology could advance to allow large amounts of data to be housed in smaller containers, which could render data centers housed in large warehouses obsolete. 
“I think that is where you talk about the vibrancy of a community,” Schweitzer said. 
“If you think about vacant large buildings in the city of St Louis, it's one of the things that is the most challenging for neighborhoods.” 
“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: 5.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 9.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic9.1%This article: 5.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 8.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias10.8%This article: 11.2%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias11.2%This article: 23.1%Jason Rosenbaum: 6.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias23.1%This article: 2.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias2.6%This article: 7.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.4%Jason Rosenbaum: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.4%This article: 7.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 5.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope5.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.6%Jason Rosenbaum: 4.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization7.6%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 7.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.8%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 6.5%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.7%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal6.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice9.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Jason Rosenbaum: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.0%

536 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers79%attributed speech110writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Anne Schweitzer • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Board of Public Service • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 11 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 30 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 40 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 40 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAnne Schweitzer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words8.2% of attributed speech43% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Louis Board of Public Service: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.