BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Confirmation Bias, and Anchoring Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 14% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 913 faulty-reasoning hits from 762 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.3% and a BS Rank of 19% (23,011 of 28,109 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

The old Cooper Green Mercy Hospital building stands vacant. 
(Photo by Solomon Crenshaw Jr.) 
Despite the opposition of Sheila Tyson, the Jefferson County Commission on Tuesday moved the sale of the old Cooper Green Mercy Hospital building to the agenda of Thursday’s commission meeting. 
The University of Alabama at Birmingham has offered to buy the property in a deal Tyson said too greatly favors the buyer. 
UAB was given the right of first refusal to buy the old hospital building when the county approved the creation of the Cooper Green Mercy Health Services Authority in April 2019. 
The authority provides patient care at the new Cooper Green Mercy medical building next door to the former site. 
That agreement with UAB passed on a 3-2 vote, with commissioners Jimmie Stephens and Joe Knight and then-Commissioner Steve Ammons voting yes. 
Tyson and Commissioner Lashunda Scales voted no. 
The resulting seven-member authority board has four members appointed by UAB, and it can accept or reject the county’s appointees. 
In Tuesday’s meeting, Tyson cited a county appraisal of the building that set the value at $11 million. 
But UAB’s offer is less, and the county would have to tear down the old hospital building. 
“If that’s what it appraised for, why would we cut a deal with UAB for this piece of property?” 
Tyson asked. 
“It seems like we are always giving them money, and they are already over there running Cooper Green. 
But if this is the price, they either take it or leave it. 
I don’t understand. 
I know they say the property is more valuable with the building off. 
Well, they either take it or leave it. 
If not, sell it to someone else that’s willing to buy it or lease it out because that money is going toward youth detention, and we need all the money we can get.” 
Tyson said money from the sale will go toward building a new youth detention center. 
Jefferson County Commissioner Sheila Tyson questioned a deal for UAB to buy the old Cooper Green Mercy Hospital building during a meeting Aug. 
4, 2026. 
(Photo by Solomon Crenshaw Jr.) 
County Manager Cal Markert said the county and UAB each hired an appraiser, with the county’s appraisal being $11.197 million and UAB’s appraisal coming in at $9.6 million. 
He said the county’s higher value was with the building removed from the property, so the county had to cover the cost of demolition. 
“After much discussion, they came up to $10.7 (million),” Markert said. 
“We felt pretty good about that, but we still had to deal with demolition costs. 
So we did an estimate. 
They did an estimate. 
Their estimate was $2.9 million. 
Our estimate was $2.7 (million). 
If you take the agreed-upon appraisal value, $10.7 (million),  and you subtract the demolition cost, you come (up with) the $7.8 million. 
“The building was more of a hazard than any kind of asset,” the county manager continued. 
“Unfortunately, the paperwork in our agreement with UAB stated this is how we determine a price. 
If we can agree on this price, the next step in the agreement states, each appraiser, the one we hired and the one they hired, they agree on a third appraiser to hire and then they will tell us the price of the land and the demolition. 
We feel we may not be getting the best deal, but we’re kind of getting all we can do.” 
Stephens estimated that the county’s cost for utilities at the old Cooper Green is about $15,000 a month. 
County Attorney Theo Lawson added that the property is on the county’s insurance policy. 
Scales looked back to the initial agreement with UAB. 
“I’m saying from the beginning of when this commission decided to go with UAB so that they can take on patients and that whole PR thing that went on that I was a part of,” she said. 
“That’s the agreement I’m referring to. 
 Now you’re at the tail end of this thing. 
You’ve given them the parking deck and now you’re on to this last little piece, which is the Cooper Green building itself. 
This horse is all the way out the gate.” 
Stephens said he appreciated the discussion broached by Tyson. 
“If nothing else, that has brought to light that we need to be a better partner,” he said. 
“We need to expect a better partnership from our other stakeholders.” 
The post JeffCo to Consider Selling Old Cooper Green Property to UAB appeared first on BirminghamWatch . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Virginia Martin: 1.6%BirminghamWatch: 1.3%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 6.8%Virginia Martin: 0.7%BirminghamWatch: 0.3%Anchoring Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.9%BirminghamWatch: 0.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.7%BirminghamWatch: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.5%BirminghamWatch: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Virginia Martin: 0.6%BirminghamWatch: 0.4%Overconfidence Bias3.7%This article: 2.4%Virginia Martin: 2.6%BirminghamWatch: 2.5%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 4.3%Virginia Martin: 0.3%BirminghamWatch: 0.2%Loss Aversion4.3%This article: 6.2%Virginia Martin: 0.9%BirminghamWatch: 0.4%Status Quo Bias6.2%This article: 6.6%Virginia Martin: 1.2%BirminghamWatch: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect6.6%This article: 2.0%Virginia Martin: 3.5%BirminghamWatch: 4.5%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.5%BirminghamWatch: 0.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Virginia Martin: 2.4%BirminghamWatch: 1.4%Negativity Bias2.4%This article: 2.5%Virginia Martin: 0.6%BirminghamWatch: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.5%BirminghamWatch: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 2.5%BirminghamWatch: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Virginia Martin: 1.3%BirminghamWatch: 0.9%Recency Bias4.9%This article: 1.2%Virginia Martin: 0.1%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Primacy Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.7%Virginia Martin: 1.2%BirminghamWatch: 1.0%Appeal to Authority1.7%This article: 12.2%Virginia Martin: 2.0%BirminghamWatch: 1.1%False Dilemma12.2%This article: 1.3%Virginia Martin: 0.1%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Slippery Slope1.3%This article: 6.2%Virginia Martin: 0.4%BirminghamWatch: 0.3%Circular Reasoning6.2%This article: 2.4%Virginia Martin: 1.4%BirminghamWatch: 1.0%Hasty Generalization2.4%This article: 4.3%Virginia Martin: 0.6%BirminghamWatch: 0.3%Red Herring4.3%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.8%Virginia Martin: 2.6%BirminghamWatch: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 3.3%Virginia Martin: 0.2%BirminghamWatch: 0.2%Begging the Question3.3%This article: 4.9%Virginia Martin: 0.3%BirminghamWatch: 0.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.9%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.2%BirminghamWatch: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.1%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.3%BirminghamWatch: 0.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.0%Virginia Martin: 1.3%BirminghamWatch: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.2%BirminghamWatch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.9%Virginia Martin: 0.1%BirminghamWatch: 0.2%Personal Incredulity2.9%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.0%BirminghamWatch: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Virginia Martin: 0.7%BirminghamWatch: 0.6%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.2%BirminghamWatch: 0.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.4%Virginia Martin: 2.4%BirminghamWatch: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice2.4%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.7%BirminghamWatch: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 1.7%BirminghamWatch: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Virginia Martin: 0.3%BirminghamWatch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Virginia Martin: 2.4%BirminghamWatch: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

762 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers80%attributed speech154writer words
Selected voice

Lashunda Scales

100%flagged-word coverage
84 attributed words14% of attributed speech11% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote+44.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lashunda Scales: 44.0%44.0%

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.