Third draft of code refresh to be released Aug. 17 16%

By Sarah Vogelsong36%

8/4/2026, 1:14:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Slippery Slope, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.6% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 523 faulty-reasoning hits from 425 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.5% and a BS Rank of 16% (23,541 of 27,841 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.60% of the article peer group.

Richmond officials announced this week that the third draft of the proposed citywide rezoning will be released Aug. 
17. 
The third draft will likely be the final proposal of the code refresh that is sent to the Planning Commission and City Council for their verdict, although Mayor Danny Avula’s administration has said it is open to further revisions as needed. 
Among the key decisions the draft will resolve are how many housing units will be allowed on a single residential lot, how places of worship should be zoned and how many unrelated people can make up a household. 
In a round of hearings on those questions this summer, some members of the City Council and Planning Commission appeared to be moving away from the idea of giving property owners more flexibility to construct duplexes on residential lots in addition to the accessory dwelling unit already allowed. 
Councilor Andrew Breton (1st District), who has been generally positive in public comments about the idea of increasing housing options, recently told constituents in his newsletter that “allowing three units on any single-family property  is too controversial a proposal, one that threatens to derail the many other benefits of updating our antiquated zoning code.” 
The Richmonder has provided extensive coverage of the effort to rewrite the city’s zoning code. 
Read some of our past stories here: Project overview: THE NEXT 50 YEARS: Richmond’s zoning overhaul envisions a denser city. 
What will that look like? 
Leaders of the effort say density will mean 
The duplex proposal has been one of the most controversial of the rezoning and has evolved over the past year. 
The first draft of the refresh would have allowed a duplex on all residential lots. 
After pushback from residents in single family neighborhoods and concerns about incentivizing teardowns, the second draft revised the proposal to what it called the “preservation bonus," a plan that only allows a second unit if the existing home remains in place and the new unit is located behind or within the current home. 
Both drafts have continued to allow accessory dwelling units in all residential areas, a decision made by the City Council in 2023 and now backed by a state law that will require all local governments to permit ADUs in single family residential districts with limited regulatory powers beginning July 1, 2027. 
No new zoning plan can go into effect until it gets the endorsement of the City Council in a formal vote. 
Contact Reporter Sarah Vogelsong at svogelsong@richmonder.org 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.5%Sarah Vogelsong: 1.4%The Richmonder: 0.9%Confirmation Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.9%The Richmonder: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Sarah Vogelsong: 3.4%The Richmonder: 1.4%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.3%The Richmonder: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.2%The Richmonder: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.7%The Richmonder: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Sarah Vogelsong: 3.8%The Richmonder: 2.2%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.5%The Richmonder: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 1.3%The Richmonder: 0.7%Status Quo Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.4%The Richmonder: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 5.1%The Richmonder: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.4%The Richmonder: 0.3%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 17.6%Sarah Vogelsong: 3.1%The Richmonder: 1.9%Negativity Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 2.9%The Richmonder: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.3%The Richmonder: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.1%The Richmonder: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.9%The Richmonder: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.9%The Richmonder: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.3%The Richmonder: 0.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.2%The Richmonder: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 3.8%The Richmonder: 1.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.7%The Richmonder: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 12.9%Sarah Vogelsong: 1.5%The Richmonder: 0.3%Slippery Slope12.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 2.1%The Richmonder: 1.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.8%The Richmonder: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 3.0%The Richmonder: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.1%The Richmonder: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 2.2%The Richmonder: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.4%The Richmonder: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 2.0%The Richmonder: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.5%The Richmonder: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.7%The Richmonder: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.4%The Richmonder: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.9%Sarah Vogelsong: 1.9%The Richmonder: 0.7%Unattributed Quote12.9%This article: 12.9%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.7%The Richmonder: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection12.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 1.1%The Richmonder: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.3%The Richmonder: 0.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Vogelsong: 0.0%The Richmonder: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Sarah Vogelsong: 1.0%The Richmonder: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.2%

425 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech355writer words
Selected voice

Andrew Breton

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words79% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Breton: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Breton: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Andrew Breton: 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.