Latest news with #Brawley
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Anchorage leaders move to change 'site access' rules they say hamper new housing development
May 29—The Anchorage mayor's office and members of the Assembly are pushing for a package of changes to zoning rules that they say are impeding development and stalling new housing construction the city desperately needs. "Anchorage needs to build more housing, but some of our tools are broken. To build the future we want, first we need to fix our tools," Mayor Suzanne LaFrance said in a statement released alongside two influential members of the Assembly, a signal the administration is aligned with legislators on the measure. The ordinance from the administration, Assembly Vice Chair Anna Brawley and member Daniel Volland is 51 pages of technical adjustments to a set of policies loosely labeled "site access." Those are the rules scattered throughout Title 21, the building code, that cover requirements for various access routes people use to get into their homes and other buildings. "The proposal is complex but could be summarized as a simplification of standards for driveways, parking areas, and building frontages, with an emphasis on flexibility while providing for better physical definitions of private property and the street," according to a staff report from the municipality's Planning Department. The proposed reforms, which are up for public testimony in June, came out of a monthslong working group that brought together developers, planners, community advocates, elected officials and others to address building rules that were hindering new projects. "I would characterize this one less as 'unlocking a bunch of new housing.' This is fixing something that isn't working in the code now," Brawley said in an interview. Over the last several years, elected officials from all different political backgrounds have been trying to change planning and zoning rules in ways that make it easier to build new residential units. But not all those adjustments have worked. Brawley said there are big sections of the building code that are so technical, cumbersome, and hard to understand that simply parsing it has become a delay for builders. "If the code is too complicated to read, then it's not working," Brawley said. The new proposal simplifies code around site access development. It also grants more administrative discretion for the many instances where projects, especially in-fill development and new multifamily structures, involve nuances and variables that are hard to completely square with written regulations. "What problem were we trying to solve here?" asked Daniel Mckenna-Foster from the city's Long-Range Planning Division during a February meeting hosted by the Federation of Community Councils. "It's really about the interaction between private properties and the how people get from one to the other." Many of the requirements addressed in the new ordinance have been on pause since the Assembly passed a moratorium on implementing them several months ago. That pause is set to expire this November. The working group proposal, which was endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in March before it went along to the Assembly, would replace the previous site access rules. "It is more expensive and challenging than ever to build housing in Anchorage," said Tyler Robinson, Vice President of Cook Inlet Housing Authority, in a statement released after the working group made it's recommendations. "The changes to code introduced by the Site Access ordinance fundamentally broke our ability to provide more housing to the community — from single-family homes to large apartment buildings." LaFrance has made housing a policy priority for her administration, emphasizing that the municipality and Assembly need a multi-prong approach to add 10,000 new housing units in the coming decade. The administration, along with allies on the Assembly who are pushing for better development strategies, say one piece of that is promptly scrapping policies that aren't working. "This is fixing problems we already know about, this isn't new policy," Brawley said of the new proposal. "I think it's both the product and the process we wanted to highlight." The Assembly will hear public testimony on the ordinance at its June 10 meeting.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Vanderhall Introduces the 2025 Brawley to Regional Customers
PROVO, Utah, May 2, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Vanderhall is thrilled to announce the launch of the highly anticipated 2025 Brawley, a game-changing all-electric adventure vehicle now available to regional customers. With cutting-edge innovation, impeccable design, and unparalleled performance, the 2025 Brawley is poised to redefine the outdoor driving experience. Brawley was introduced into the powersports market in early 2024 to local customers only, but now has opened to regional customers for the 2025 models. The 2025 Brawley is designed with both adventure seekers and environmentally conscious drivers in mind. Featuring advanced all-terrain capabilities, a powerful electric drivetrain, and a robust battery range, the Brawley is built to conquer the rugged outdoors while staying eco-friendly. Packed with state-of-the-art technology, it boasts a comfortable interior and exceptional off-road performance, making it the ultimate choice for thrill-seekers. "Our mission has always been to create vehicles that deliver more than just transportation—they provide unforgettable experiences," said Steve Hall, CEO of Vanderhall. "The 2025 Brawley takes this vision to the next level by blending sustainable innovation with the excitement of adventure. For more information about the 2025 Brawley or to schedule a test drive, please contact a Vanderhall store or visit About Vanderhall Vanderhall is a premier manufacturer of high-performance, handcrafted vehicles based in Provo, Utah. Renowned for their dedication to design, quality, and innovation, Vanderhall creates vehicles that inspire and excite enthusiasts worldwide. Visit for details. Contact:***@ Photos: Press release distributed by PRLog View original content: SOURCE Vanderhall Motor Works Inc. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
NIH Starts Cutting Parts of Research Grant Funding
The main historical building of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) inside Bethesda campus Credit - Getty Images The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, and its grants create the foundation of basic science knowledge on which major health advances are built. On Feb. 7, the NIH announced that it would cut "indirect expenses" in the funding it provides to research grants by nearly half. 'We were all just dumbstruck,' says Dr. Richard Huganir, professor and chairman of the department of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who relies on NIH grants for his research into therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities. 'I'm calling it the apocalypse of American science. This will basically change science as we know it in the U.S.' "We're going to see health research kneecapped," says Dr. Otis Brawley, professor of oncology and epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Brawley has overseen grants at the National Cancer Institute (which is part of the NIH) as well as received them for his cancer research. The funding cut took effect on Feb. 9 and targets indirect costs, which include facilities and administration costs. In an immediate response, 22 states sued the NIH and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (which oversees NIH), calling the action 'unlawful' and saying it would 'devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the United States.' Hours later, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a temporary restraining order preventing the NIH from immediately cutting billions in the grants it issues to scientists and their institutions. Here's what to know about the ongoing funding turmoil at the NIH. NIH awards around $30 to $35 billion in grants each year to a wide range of disease-related research projects. It helped fund the mRNA technology that eventually led to the recent COVID-19 vaccines, for example. In a Feb. 7 post on X, the agency said about $9 billion of its annual research grant budget goes toward indirect costs, which are charged by academic institutions receiving the grants. Institutes that receive NIH grants negotiate indirect cost rates, taking into account how much they need to pay for things like heat, air conditioning, and electricity inside research facilities. Administrative costs include those required to comply with legal and regulatory requirements to conduct the research. Once a rate agreement is reached, it applies to all federal grants from NIH to that institution. Read More: Why Are So Many Young People Getting Cancer? It's Complicated Indirect costs can range from nearly 30% to 70% of a research grant, depending on the institution. Certain non-academic institutes that have fewer resources than academic universities tend to have higher indirect rates, from 90% to 100%, says Brawley. In its X post, the NIH says Harvard has charged 69%, Yale 67.5%, and Johns Hopkins 63.7% in indirect costs. (Johns Hopkins' rate recently changed to 55%, Brawley and Huganir say.) Under its new policy, the NIH would cap indirect costs for all institutions at 15%. Huganir says indirect costs are essential for modern-day research. In addition to keeping the lights on in labs, they cover maintaining and staffing critical scientific equipment and resources such as animal facilities, DNA sequencing, and imaging. 'Right now we are in the middle of developing therapies that could really cure certain forms of intellectual disability for millions of kids across the world,' he says. 'We are terrified that the research is going to stop.' The NIH did not immediately respond to a request about what prompted the change, directing journalists to the agency's Grants Policy Statement. However, Elon Musk—tasked by the Trump Administration to address efficiency in government spending—called out the high percentage of indirect costs that the NIH had been supporting. 'Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for 'overhead?' he wrote on X on Feb. 7. The 15% cap puts NIH grants in line with those from private philanthropic agencies that support research. The NIH says that these entities—such as the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative—allow a maximum of 10% to 15% of a research grant for indirect costs. But philanthropic foundations and academic institutes aren't comparable to the federal government when it comes to funding science, Brawley and Huganir say, since foundations tend to support more focused and specific endeavors, such as individual faculty members or targeted projects. So far, it's unclear. In his post on X, Musk hinted that endowments should be part of the solution. But health experts say endowments aren't a consistent or practical source of funding for overhead costs, since many outline narrow purposes or projects for the funds that are legally allocated and can't be redirected to cover things like research expenses. Read More: 8 Ways to Shorten Your Wait for a Doctor's Appointment 'Nobody else can really afford to pay for it,' says Brawley. 'What's worked nicely over the last 50 to 60 years is that the NIH does a lot of basic science research, asking questions that people can't make money from. And the corporations, including biotech, can swoop in, and take that basic science information and do engineering and turn it into things you can sell and treat diseases with.' Without the funding to support indirect costs, much of the scientific work that has been a mainstay of the U.S. biomedical field may not happen, or would take much longer. 'The bottom line is that we are going to have a lot less resources, which obviously means we are going to have to lay people off, and research will be slowed down,' says Huganir. Brawley is also concerned about the quashing effect such actions will have on young scientists to remain in the field and create new labs. 'Nobody wins the Nobel Prize for what they did when they were 50,' he says. 'I'm worried about the loss of creativity from young people; that's where all the really good ideas come from.' Read More: 8 Symptoms Doctors Often Dismiss As Anxiety He also notes that while a lot of attention has been focused on large academic universities with big endowments and deeper financial resources, the policy will likely have an even stronger impact on smaller community hospitals that supply many of the patients who participate in clinical trials. 'People who are getting treated in clinical trials now for cancer will find many of those trials will close down,' he says. That will affect the pipeline of new treatments for diseases like cancer. Brawley says that drugs approved in the last six months have been tested in trials over the last decade, so curtailing funding in research today will slow down the pace of progress and eventually result in fewer drugs. 'I anticipate that the number of drugs approved is going to go down dramatically in the next five to 10 years,' he says. 'We have been working all weekend trying to calm faculty and students and everybody who is concerned about future careers in science,' says Huganir. 'We have lots of committees addressing different aspects of this, and we're trying to come up with ideas about how we can compensate for any losses we are experiencing." "That may mean laying people off and maybe putting hiring freezes on new faculty," he says. "We will have to make up for the difference through cost cutting in some way.' With the temporary restraining order, NIH grantees have some time to come up with a plan for how they will try to maintain the pace of scientific research with much less NIH support. 'Perhaps we need to reimagine or re-envision our entire system for how we fund science and how people make money off of science,' says Brawley. 'But the way to do that is not to threaten on Friday night to cut everybody's indirect [costs] down to 15%.' Ultimately, scientists say the American public will pay a price for the drastic funding cuts. 'The American people should know that this is going to impact them—the health of their families and their children,' says Huganir. 'And the economies of communities around these institutions that get a lot of NIH funding are going to be impacted as well.' Contact us at letters@
