KUOW73%

Seattle homeowners who don't want to sell may get relief from predatory calls 38%

By Joshua McNichols0%

6/29/2026, 5:03:09 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 631 faulty-reasoning hits from 292 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,641 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.30% of the article peer group.

Some Seattle homeowners are getting lots of unsolicited calls from buyers who offer way less than market value. 
On Monday June 29, the Seattle City Council looks at ways to make the calls stop. 
Chukundi Salisbury runs the group Black Legacy Homeowners. 
He says sometimes, someone offering to buy your home can be helpful. 
But he says many of the phone calls received by Black homeowners come from predatory lenders who know a home's value but make lowball offers. 
"They call knowing that their house, could be worth $800,000 to $900,000. 
This is Seattle. 
It's disingenuous then to say, 'Hey, you know, would you wanna sell your house for $500,000, $400,000?' 
So I would say that many of these calls are inherently... looking to take advantage of someone." 
RELATED: When falling housing prices are good news  and when they're not 
Salisbury says beyond the financial risk such lowball offers represent, they're also just annoying. 
"Like this week I've gotten five calls myself, and it's pervasive," he said. 
"And you have people where this causes anxiety, it just causes a level of anxiety that you don't need." 
Here's the city's plan: Any homeowner in Seattle who wants to be left alone could join a “do not solicit” list. 
If a buyer calls anyway, they'd face a $1,000 to $2,000 fine. 
RELATED: Seattleites are sharing housing costs and getting more for their money 
The idea's based on similar lists in New York and Philadelphia. 
Monday's meeting is just a briefing. 
The council will not be voting yet. 
If it eventually passes, the ordinance is currently scheduled to take effect next summer. 
Read more in the Seattle City Council's supporting documents. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.5%Joshua McNichols: 1.8%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias18.5%This article: 9.9%Joshua McNichols: 1.7%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias9.9%This article: 10.6%Joshua McNichols: 2.6%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic10.6%This article: 1.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.8%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.3%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.0%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Joshua McNichols: 7.5%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 4.1%Joshua McNichols: 2.2%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 5.5%Joshua McNichols: 1.2%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.5%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.0%Joshua McNichols: 5.4%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.8%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.7%Joshua McNichols: 6.2%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias27.7%This article: 5.8%Joshua McNichols: 1.7%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.5%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.8%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.1%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Joshua McNichols: 0.7%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.1%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.8%Joshua McNichols: 3.8%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 4.1%Joshua McNichols: 2.0%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.9%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.8%Joshua McNichols: 3.6%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization18.8%This article: 8.6%Joshua McNichols: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring8.6%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.4%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.3%Joshua McNichols: 5.8%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion12.3%This article: 11.6%Joshua McNichols: 1.1%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question11.6%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.1%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.2%Joshua McNichols: 2.8%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal21.2%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.2%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.7%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Joshua McNichols: 0.4%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote4.1%This article: 4.1%Joshua McNichols: 0.4%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.1%This article: 4.5%Joshua McNichols: 3.2%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice4.5%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.4%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.1%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.0%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

292 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker48%attributed speech152writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 8 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 12 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 12 words • 100.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 3 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 17 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 14 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChukundi Salisbury • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chukundi Salisbury

94%flagged-word coverage
140 attributed words100% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote+8.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Chukundi Salisbury: 8.6%8.6%Quote-first Misdirection+8.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Chukundi Salisbury: 8.6%8.6%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Chukundi Salisbury: 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.