News

Oakland Raiders News | NFL, City of Oakland Working On New Stadium; Las Vegas Update

According to Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, The City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, and the NFL are working on a stadium plan to keep the Oakland Raiders in Oakland – and to head off Las Vegas Raiders plans

Published

10 years ago

October 4, 2016

Oakland Post

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and The Oakland Raiders Town Hall Meeting of last fall of 2015, and held at the Fox Theater, played a mayor roll in the situation that formed the Oakland Raiders news today: the National Football League working with the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda in planning for a new stadium for the Raiders at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex.And, as Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley told me on Saturday, during Oaktoberfest in the Dimond District, talks with the National Football League and Ronnie Lott of what Mr. Miley calls “The Lott Group” are going well.

In fact, they’re going so well, Supervisor Miley worked to downplay progress and the good Oakland Raiders news in my talk with him, as you can see in my Zennie62 on YouTube blog interview above and here.

Contrary to views expressed by some local media types who seem to want the Raiders to leave Oakland for Las Vegas, the fact is the NFL has worked with the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, and the Oakland-Alameda County Joint Powers Authority on the objective of a new stadium for almost year, now.

Indeed, as explained at Zennie62.com on December 4th, 2015, “the National Football League is forming a plan to keep the Raiders in Oakland, and not have them go down to Carson.”

Oakland Raiders NFL Stadium News Update

As it is happened in January at the NFL Owners Meeting in Houston, NFL Owners rejected the San Diego Chargers / Oakland Raiders plan to build a 65,000-seat stadium in Carson, and approved the then St. Louis Rams’ plan to move to Los Angeles, become the L.A. Rams again, and build a state-of-the-art 80,000 seat stadium complex in Inglewood.

The rabid Oakland fan base and Mayor’s Schaaf’s success at building a positive relationship with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and his staff, caused that outcome, even as Raiders Owner Mark Davis has made moves to try and relocate the organization out of Oakland.

According to many talks with NFL Officials, the Oakland Raiders fans gave what one official recently said to me, and for the second time, an “emotional experience” during the crowded Oakland Raiders Town Hall Meeting at the Fox Theater last year. As an aside, you can see what happened and how the NFL staff in attendance reacted via this 18-video playlist from Zennie62 on YouTube:

The NFL Loves The SF Bay Area Media Market

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf was invited to give a presentation to the NFL Finance Committee in New York City on November 14th of 2015 (Zennie62Media was one of the press organizations on the scene in NYC). The NFL staffers and owners were, I was told by league officials, “charmed” by Mayor Schaaf, who was asked to show how the Oakland / East Bay Market could support the Raiders in her presentation.

That the NFL asked Mayor Schaaf to focus on the Oakland / East Bay Market and not on new stadium progress was a major news point completely missed by the media. The San Francisco Bay Area has had two NFL teams since 1960 and the media market that has grown over that time now ranks as number six in among NFL city metro areas, but is number three in terms of advertising cost-per-point behind New York and LA.

Moreover, Nielsen reports that of the top six cities, the San Francisco Bay Area is only one of two who have realized an increase in the number of television sets in the most recent, reliable data from 2015.

Where does Las Vegas rank in media market size? 40th. So Mark Davis is essentially asking his NFL Ownership friends to take a media market size and media market rights fee haircut by working on a deal with The State of Nevada and Clark County to build a stadium there, rather than focusing exclusively on staying in Oakland.

The importance of Mark Davis’ efforts can’t be underscored because the NFL’s major revenues come from the sale of the right to broadcast its games. In turn, the rights fees are determined, in part, by what it costs to show commercials in NFL cities – the lower that rate, the less the overall rights fee would be.

In an era of fragmented media stretched between the web, mobile, and television, the NFL games offer the best opportunity for brands to get their products seen by consumers across demographic groups. Since corporations have proven, time and again, that they would pay top dollar to show commercials during NFL contests, the major media networks (which take money from those companies to present their commercials) have been willing to pay the NFL as much as $27 billion in 2011.

And that 2011 deal is up for renewal in 2022.

The NFL wants to walk into the 2022 negotiations being able to show a more valuable overall product to Walt Disney Company and the other media giants by that time, and that explains moving the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles, and it is the reason why the league will not allow the Raiders to walk out of Oakland for Las Vegas. Media fragmentation has the NFL very concerned about the future growth of its seed-corn money base, and is working to insure it increases over the next generation.

The Ronnie Lott Group And Oakland Coliseum NFL Stadium Plan Progress

To complete the process of building a new, state-of-the-art NFL stadium for the Oakland Raiders at the Coliseum, on August 26th, the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda entered into a 90-day “memorandum of understanding” with the Oakland City Pro Football Group LLC, which is ran by NFL Hall of Fame Defensive Back Ronnie Lott, who’s joined by NFL alum and USC legend (which is painful for this Cal-Berkeley grad to write) Rodney Peete.

For two months prior to the August MOU date, the Oakland City Pro Football Group LLC was characterized by Oakland officials as consisting of Lott, Peete, and Egbert Perry, the Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of The Integral Group, and Chairman Of The Board of Fannie Mae. But while the MOU itself specifically mentioned Lott and his group, it did not name Perry in any way.

Then, Perry and another LLC he’s part of called Stadium Real Estate Partners LLC sent a letter to Oakland and Alameda County Officials announcing an offer to buy Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum land for $167 million, or about $2 million over the $165 million required to defease the ‘Raiders Bonds’ used to pay for the upgrade of the Oakland Coliseum stadium to bring the Raiders back to Oakland from L.A in 1995., and that the City and County have paid a $20 million annual debt service on since 1996, when the plan to sell ‘personal seat licenses’ fell short of revenue goals, raising only $56 million, when an initial sale of $83 million was required.

That offer by Stadium Real Estate Partners LLC was rejected by The City of Oakland. Mayor Schaaf said to me that “We aren’t considering it for recommendation at this time because we want an agreement with the NFL. I am committed to keeping the Raiders and The League at the center of the deal. We can’t give up our right to control the destiny of what happens to that land (at the Coliseum). A new stadium that keeps the Raiders in Oakland, but is responsible to the team, the league and the taxpayer – and enhances economic vitality around the Coliseum and delivers community benefits.”

The act of rejecting Perry caused some Raiders fans, and this blogger, to believe the entire process of maintaining the Raiders in Oakland was in trouble. But a number of Oakland Officials, and most notably Mayor Schaaf on the record, have made assurances that is not the case.

Indeed, the entire Perry soap opera masks the simple fact that since last year, the Raiders have had drawings of what a new Oakland Coliseum NFL Stadium will look like, and while Oakland officials have seen them, they have never been released to the public. And this year, the Raiders have taken construction bids for a stadium cost study. Additionally, Larry McNeil, the Raiders Vice President of Business Affairs and stadium point person, has worked with Oakland Officials, even meeting with the Mayor and consultants as recently as September 15th.

According to Miley, a stadium plan is expected to be done by January of 2017. And the entire affair has been helped by the news that the Oakland Athletics are interested in building a new baseball stadium at Howard Terminal. For a time so many possible areas were being considered the Oakland A’s might as well have selected Michaan’s Auctions land in Alameda.

The Perry soap opera also masks the news that, as Miley told me in my interview over the weekend, Alameda County is no longer interested in selling its part of the Oakland Coliseum to the City of Oakland, believing it can help in the new stadium planning process by providing its considerable resources for use.

That’s a major change from last year, when, in May, the same Supervisor Miley dropped a bomb of a press release announcing the County’s Board of Supervisors wanted out of, as they put it, ‘the sports business’. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors have obviously cooled its collectively heated emotions, and resolved to work with the City of Oakland as a team. And that has come at the perfect time because of the presence of what Mayor Schaaf calls “The Las Vegas Threat.”

Raiders Las Vegas NFL Stadium Plans And Proposed Nevada Special Session

In late January, Oakland Raiders Owner Mark Davis met with Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson and University of Nevada Las Vegas President Len Jessup to tour possible sites for a new Raiders stadium in Sin City. Davis, rankled that the NFL rejected his Carson stadium proposal, took up an offer by Adelson, who, in turn, was reportedly wooed (via his deputy government affairs representative Andy Abboud) by former Raiders player and Las Vegas resident Napoleon McCallum.

That ignited Las Vegas Sands partnering with The Raiders and Majestic Realty to present a plan for a 65,000 seat stadium in Las Vegas, and before a group formed by Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and called The Southern Nevada Tourism and Infrastructure Committee, or SNTIC, and that was already meeting over the past year ostensibly on how to pay for expanding the Las Vegas Convention Center (LVCC).

Davis and Adelson wanted the SNTIC to send a recommendation to the Governor that a hotel tax increase and a subsidy of $750 million for a new NFL Stadium in Las Vegas or Clark County should be presented in a bill to the Nevada Legislature. A request that, given the size of the public contribution and the fact that Adelson, worth $29 billion, could pay for the stadium himself, seemed a long shot to get from the SNTIC.

But the Governor’s SNTIC was wired by Adelson and the Las Vegas Casino Industry: many top casino managers sat on it, and in 2015, Las Vegas Sands had given over $25,000 to the campaign of the two elected officials on it: Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman and Clark County Supervisor Steve Sisolak. (Moreover, Adelson has given over $200,000 to the campaigns of over 20 Nevada elected officials or those running for office over the past two years.)

With that, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal owned by the Adelson family, it should come as no surprise that the SNTIC would eventually approve Davis and Adelson’s request. Now, it’s up to Governor Sandoval to call the special session, which has not happened yet even though he said the meeting date would be between October 7th and October 11th.

It’s October 4th now.

Whatever’s going on to cause what seems to be a delay, Nevada political observers, and Raiders fans close to the story believe that with taxpayer groups loudly crying foul against what is called a welfare give to a billionaire in Adelson, and this being an election year, there’s little desire for the Nevada Legislature to approve the huge level funding.

Moreover, there are concerns with the Raiders / Las Vegas Sands NFL stadium plan and they were left unadressed by the SNTIC, which was rushed to get to a conclusion because the Raiders are anxious to get a Las Vegas proposal before NFL Owners by January of next year:

First, the Raiders plan is without a firm land deal, and one of the two areas selected is right next to Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, an idea that Southwest Airlines has told me it would not be in favor of for reasons of aviation safety.

Second, the proposed legislation calls for a bond issue with a debt coverage ratio that, at 1.5, is below the industry standard of two, or double the revenue from the proposed tax increase. To put it simply, the bond deal by design is in danger of not being able to pay for itself. Governor Sandoval has said he’s convinced the bond deal can work, but then he is considered to be working to meet Adelson’s request. And I’m told a number of Nevada elected officials don’t want to piss off Adelson.

Third, the proposed legislation is written such that there would be no cap on the amount of money the public, known as The Nevada Government and Clark County, would spend on the NFL Stadium over and above the $750 million. The SNTIC rejected the proposal that there should be a cap, and so the public could wind up spending over $1 billion on an NFL stadium if the Nevada Legislature and the NFL Owners gave Davis and Adelson what they wanted.

Sheldon Adelson’s Legal Problems With Money Laundering Claims

Finally, there’s the issue of Adelson himself and the flurry of lawsuits filed and settlement given around allegations of money laundering connected to Chinese high-rollers, some said to have questionable business practices. You can learn more about that in my vlog below, but to what degree does this problem taint the entire deal? Will Nevada Legislators take that into account in an election year that’s just 35 days from conclusion as of this writing?

If not, and the Nevada Legislature approves this gargantuan public subsidy for the Raiders and Las Vegas Sands, the entire matter will fall to The Clark County Board Of Supervisors for a final decision. Because of a newly installed “Home Rule” law in 2015, Clark County gets final say on the $750 million bond issue. I talk about that, here:

Stay tuned and subscribe to Zennie62 on YouTube for up-to-the-minute video-blogs on this story.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Infants’ “Gut Microbes” Predict Risk of Childhood Allergies and Asthma

Don't Miss

SF State Joins Groundbreaking Bioengineering Center

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Business

OPINION: 57,000 Empty Apartments and Not a Word of Apology – City Limits

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — “Short-term rental income was, for many of these families, not a luxury. It was the margin between keeping the house and losing it. Local Law 18 closed that door, and the people who closed it are now waving away 57,000 empty apartments as statistical noise.”

Published

3 days ago

August 20, 2026

bpusa-syndication

OPINION: 57,000 Empty Apartments and Not a Word of Apology - City Limits

Every indicator in New York City’s housing market is pointing in the wrong direction.

Rents are at historic highs. Foreclosure notices are climbing in Black and brown neighborhoods that never fully recovered from the last crisis. Deed theft, the predatory stripping of generational wealth from families who built their equity over decades, continues to devastate communities from Brownsville to Jamaica.

On top of all these factors, there were more than 57,000 rent-stabilized apartments sitting completely empty as of April last year. That number grew by 8,000 units in a single year, with the sharpest increases hitting Brooklyn and Queens hardest.

Brooklyn and Queens. My neighborhoods. Your neighborhoods.

You would think that news of 57,000 empty affordable apartments in the middle of a housing emergency would produce outrage, emergency hearings, and demands for accountability. Instead, New Yorkers got a collective shrug from opinion leaders.

Read that again: 57,000 families could be housed in those apartments. Households currently paying market rent, doubled up, couch-surfing, or one missed paycheck away from the street could have relief. And silence from the city’s housing leadership, activists, and coalitions.

In my experience as chair of the Subcommittee on Affordable Housing in the Assembly, that is not advocacy. That is surrender.

These are the same voices, the same institutions, the same political class that successfully lobbied to effectively ban short-term rentals in New York City through Local Law 18. At its peak, Airbnb had roughly 20,000 listings in New York City, nearly a third the number of apartments currently sitting vacant and padlocked in the rent-stabilized system. The campaign against those listings was relentless, loud, and wrapped in the language of affordability and housing justice.

Where is that energy now?

Where are the press conferences about landlords warehousing stabilized units while families sleep in shelters? Where is the legislation with teeth? Where is the outrage that was apparently plentiful when a Black homeowner in Bed Stuy wanted to rent out her spare bedroom to make ends meet?

Because that is exactly who Local Law 18 hit hardest. Not the corporate bad actors. Not the hedge funds. The struggling homeowner, disproportionately Black, disproportionately in Brooklyn and Queens, who used their home as a small economic engine to survive in a city that grows more expensive by the month.

Those families were told their activity was destabilizing the housing market. Those families were fined, delisted, and legislated out of a livelihood. And now we learn that 57,000 stabilized units are sitting empty while rents spiral and foreclosures mount, and the response from housing advocates is essentially: that’s just how big numbers work.

This is not sound policy. This is politics. And the communities paying the price know the difference.

I have spoken with homeowners across Central Brooklyn who are barely holding on. They bought their homes, sometimes one generation removed from the Great Migration, and they have watched the equity they built become both their greatest asset and their greatest vulnerability. Predatory lenders, deed theft schemes, and rising property taxes all circle that equity like wolves.

Short-term rental income was, for many of these families, not a luxury. It was the margin between keeping the house and losing it. Local Law 18 closed that door, and the people who closed it are now waving away 57,000 empty apartments as statistical noise.

Everyone in this fight knows what needs to happen but will not say it out loud: Local Law 18 needs reform. Common sense reform. The kind that distinguishes between an investor running a ghost hotel and a homeowner renting a room. The kind that actually targets bad actors instead of penalizing the most economically vulnerable property owners in the city.

I hear it in private conversations with elected officials, with housing attorneys, with planners. The consensus is there. The political will is not, because the same advocacy groups and political donors who pushed the original law are still in the room, and nobody wants to take their call.

What this moment requires is courage, not calculation.

Every month that passes with 57,000 empty stabilized apartments is a month of families in crisis, of shelter costs ballooning, of neighborhoods destabilizing. Every month that Local Law 18 remains unreformed is another month a Black homeowner in Flatbush or Hollis faces impossible choices that wealthier New Yorkers simply never have to make.

You cannot ban the small and ignore the large. You cannot mobilize armies of lobbyists against a homeowner’s spare bedroom while shrugging at tens of thousands of warehoused affordable units. You cannot claim to stand for housing justice and then tell 57,000 families worth of empty apartments that the math just works out this way.

The hypocrisy has to stop. Politics have to give way to people. And the officials and advocates who have the power to fix this, who know what needs to be done, have to decide which side they are actually on.

Because from where I stand, in the communities I have served for decades, it is very clear who is being left out in the cold.

Dr. Annette Robinson is a former member of both the State Assembly and City Council in Brooklyn.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Commentary

NPRC Elder Justice Symposium Invites Community to Join Effort to Protect Alameda County Elders

“Two of our most vulnerable populations are elders and the disabled, and many times that combination resides in one individual,” said Tanya Dennis, lead facilitator of NPRC. “At our symposium, NPRC will bring decision makers and elders together in one space for a day to develop strategy and policy to protect and empower.”

Published

4 days ago

August 19, 2026

bpusa-syndication

The National Probate Reform Coalition (NPRC) will host an Elder Justice Symposium on Friday, Sept. 25, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Oakland City Hall, bringing elders, families, advocates, policymakers and community leaders together to address elder abuse, financial exploitation and problems within probate and conservatorship systems.

The symposium is designed to inform and empower the community while developing strategies and policies to better protect Alameda County’s vulnerable elders and disabled residents.

Dennis said NPRC has drafted proposed legislation intended to make conservatorship a true last resort by adding safeguards before and after a petition is filed. Proposals include mandatory private mediation before entering probate and placement of an ombudsman in probate proceedings to advocate for the rights and interests of prospective or current conservatees.

The coalition also wants stronger protections for elders’ estates and assets, arguing that money accumulated over a lifetime should be preserved for elders, families and intended beneficiaries rather than unnecessarily depleted by court-related expenses.

NPRC meets monthly through Zoom and has expanded into a national coalition because elder abuse, financial exploitation and guardianship and conservatorship concerns extend well beyond Alameda County.

“Members share horror stories of being isolated from their parents and children, many times physically abused and overmedicated; seeing estates drained for court costs, and assets that parents spent decades saving to leave a legacy depleted instead and going to strangers,” said Venus Gist, an NPRC co-facilitator and former victim of the probate system. Gist said she spent more than $80,000 trying to protect her parents’ estate.

“Eighty thousand dollars is nothing compared to the people in our group losing millions and having to sell their businesses and homes to pay court fees,” she said.

The symposium will also examine forms of elder exploitation including telephone scams, bank fraud, identity theft, family financial abuse and exploitation by trusted individuals. Participants will learn to recognize warning signs involving caregivers, financial professionals, health and social service workers, attorneys and guardians.

NPRC is seeking a California lawmaker willing to champion legislation that strengthens elder protections and increases accountability in the conservatorship process.

The symposium follows Supervisor Nate Miley’s 23rd Annual Healthy Living Festival on Thursday, Sept. 24, at the Oakland Zoo. The free event for adults 55 and older will feature health screenings, vaccinations, nearly 100 community resource booths, lunch, entertainment and complimentary zoo admission for eligible attendees.

Dennis said the two events offer a comprehensive two-day focus on elder well-being.

“The health fair will cover the physical care of our elders, and the next day NPRC’s symposium will cover the mental and social health,” Dennis said. “Together, we are offering a comprehensive two days of care for Alameda County elders.”

Both events are free, and advance registration is recommended because space is limited. Community members, elders, families, advocates and public officials are encouraged to participate. Breakfast and lunch will be served at both events.

For registration: Sign-up is required via Supervisor Nate Miley’s Eventbrite page NPRC registration is https://www.eventbrite.com/e/elder-justice-symposium-tickets-1998385423597?aff=oddtdtcreator

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Commentary

Episode 4: Grow Stronger After 50

INDIANAPOLIS RECORDER — Episode 4 of the Second Half of Life Podcast features hosts Thomas Griffin and Andrea McGordon in conversation with Joel Hungate, Assistant Vice President of Strategy & Integrated Wellbeing at Hancock Health. Hungate, a biomedical engineer, health adventurer, and Netflix-featured survivalist, discusses reinvention, personal reflection, confidence, and building lasting health beyond age 50.

Published

4 days ago

August 19, 2026

bpusa-syndication

Strength doesn’t disappear when you turn 50- it evolves. Just as growth is a lifelong journey, becoming stronger happens every day. The second half of life is not the beginning of decline; it is the horizon of a stronger, healthier, more confident, and happier version of yourself.

In Episode 4 of the Second Half of Life Podcast, hosts Thomas Griffin and Andrea McGordon sit down with Joel Hungate, Assistant Vice President of Strategy & Integrated Wellbeing at Hancock Health, biomedical engineer, health adventurer, and Netflix-featured survivalist, for a compelling conversation on reinvention, personal reflection, confidence, and building lasting health after 50.

Drawing from his professional expertise and extraordinary life experiences, Joel challenges many of the myths surrounding aging and demonstrates that the years after 50 can be filled with purpose, adventure, and renewed strength.

The Door Doesn’t Shut at Your Second Half

One of the most memorable moments from the conversation came when Joel Hungate shared a simple yet profound truth:

“The door doesn’t shut at 50.”

Far too many people believe that once they reach the second half of life, opportunities begin to disappear. Joel offers a refreshing perspective, reminding viewers that age does not determine potential. Instead, the years after 50 present an opportunity to reflect on your experiences, redefine your purpose, and confidently pursue new goals.

Whether you’ve always wanted to travel, learn a new skill, improve your health, or simply become the best version of yourself, your second half is not a limitation; it’s an invitation.

Watch the first short clip here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uTp_tFVgb55Ux1GWmQnLRHp2YTVdl68k/view?usp=drivesdk

Find a Version of Strength Training That Works for You

When people hear the words strength training, many immediately picture lifting heavy weights in a gym. Joel Hungate believes strength looks different for everyone.

You don’t need an expensive fitness membership to become stronger. Walking after dinner, climbing stairs, carrying groceries, hiking with friends, cycling, resistance exercises, or simply staying physically active can all help build strength and preserve independence as you age.

Joel encourages people 50 and over to find a form of movement they genuinely enjoy because consistency not intensity, is what transforms health over time. One practical habit he recommends is taking a walk after dinner, a simple routine that benefits both physical health and overall wellbeing.

Watch the second short clip here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/188dzfMoEbNOxzjXxde2-j4xochFL8lHQ/view?usp=drivesdk

A Way Out of the Frailty Epidemic

Frailty has become one of the greatest health challenges affecting those over 50, yet many people don’t realize that it is not an inevitable part of aging.

During the conversation, Joel explains how maintaining muscle strength, staying active, and making intentional lifestyle choices can significantly reduce the risk of frailty while supporting healthy weight management.

Rather than accepting weakness as a normal part of growing older, he challenges listeners to adopt habits that preserve mobility, resilience, and independence for years to come.

If you’ve ever wondered how to stay strong and capable well into your later years, this conversation offers practical insights that could change the way you think about aging.

Watch the third short clip here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/13BJIGBE68IsEoA3sVaAT8UIBEpepq6A7/view?usp=drivesdk

Eating Better Isn’t the Goal for a Healthy You- Here’s What Is

One of Joel’s most thought-provoking statements during the episode was:

“When we think health is an end goal, it never works.”

Health is not a destination that we eventually arrive at, it is a lifelong journey shaped by daily decisions.

Joel explains that while nutritious eating is important, lasting health is built through a combination of purposeful movement, meaningful relationships, quality sleep, continual learning, and embracing new adventures. Healthy living is about creating a lifestyle that allows you to enjoy life, not simply following another diet.

This refreshing perspective encourages viewers to shift their focus from chasing perfection to building sustainable habits that support long-term wellbeing.

Watch the fourth short clip here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PjaysWUmBOTQunVBqQb6KcgKPHEUL5qM/view?usp=drivesdk

More Than a Conversation- A Blueprint for Living Stronger

Episode 4 of the Second Half of Life Podcast is more than an inspiring discussion- it is a practical guide for anyone determined to thrive after 50.

Joel Hungate shares expert insights, personal experiences, and actionable advice that challenge outdated beliefs about aging. His message is clear: strength doesn’t fade with age unless we stop investing in it.

If you’re ready to eliminate the fear of frailty, build lasting confidence, and embrace the adventure that awaits in the second half of life, this episode is one you won’t want to miss.

Watch the full episode now and discover how to grow stronger after 50.

For more, visit indianapolisrecorder.com.

The post Episode 4: Grow Stronger After 50 appeared first on Indianapolis Recorder.

Based on reporting by Indianapolis Recorder.