Topgolf project should not be allowed on public tidelands 99%

By U T Readers100%

7/23/2026, 12:00:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 91.1% saturation with 163 hits. Analysis detected 874 faulty-reasoning hits from 179 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.1% and a BS Rank of 99% (415 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.10% of the article peer group.

Re “After years of silence, plan for polarizing Topgolf venue on San Diego Bay on path to approval” (July 19): The Topgolf project has no place on our public tidelands. 
Prior developments have converted sandy shorelines to inaccessible riprap and concrete bulwarks, filled in wetlands and degraded the bay’s historical scenic character. 
Topgolf would be the crowning insult by erecting an inappropriate high-end golf facility with 170-foot-tall (17 stories!) 
netting surrounding a 4.5-acre driving range, preventing public access or use. 
This should be an unthinkable use for one of the last portions of public trust lands in North Bay that could be dedicated as a large park with natural habitats, accessible to San Diegans of all incomes. 
The draft environmental impact report does not accurately assess Topgolf’s direct conflicts with the Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Act. 
It uses selective locations to analyze scenic effects, downplaying Topgolf’s destructive impacts; fails to effectively evaluate its impacts on our bird and wildlife populations; and minimizes traffic concerns. 
 Bill Tippets, La Jolla 
Confirmation Bias
43.6%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
12.3%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
25.7%
Loss Aversion
20.7%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
14.5%
Negativity Bias
91.1%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
15.6%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
11.2%
False Dilemma
20.7%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
25.1%
Begging the Question
21.8%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
12.3%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
27.9%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
6.1%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
20.7%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
18.4%
Quote-first Misdirection
9.5%
Biased Writer Voice
79.9%
Indoctrination
11.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

179 words analyzed.

Analysis

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