| 
Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., and Another Threat
Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927
Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927
Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John,
FL 32927. No candidate approved this advertisement.
Again and again and again. The Rupe Machine just keeps pumping them out. This time, it was the owner of
Maureen Rupe Exposed who got the e-mail with the threat in
it and this time, it was not Maureen Rupe herself who was doing the threatening: it was her hubby, Robert Roy
Rupe, Jr. Yep. Junior sent it.
Here's the threat (Without correcting spelling, grammar, or punctuation):
QUOTE:
From: "Bob & Maureen Rupe" rupe32927@earthlink.net
To: "info@rupeexposed.com"
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 9:20 PM
Subject: Your Website
Mr. Costello,
Do you realize that you are solely responsible for the accusations on your website. As far as
CAPIT, since the lawsuit didn't start until 2002, and was decided in court in 2004, you
realize Maureen could not be responsible for all tax increases (140%) since 1997?
If you took 2004 forward it would be 43%, but nothing like what you are stating.
Sheely's site that you refer to is not saying the same thing that you are accusing
Maureen of. You're also forgetting the most important thing. CAPIT was illegal.
How can a referendum for incorporation be a government scheme? 74% voted
for the feasibility study, and to try to make it as fair as possible, UCF
was completely in control. They oversaw it. And Maureen or any other citizen
does not have the authority to put in place a community overlay.
You being able to prove your statements on your website will be very
important to you in the future.
Thank you.
Bob Rupe
CLOSE QUOTE
Okay. Sweet. Maybe in a hackneyed, chivalrous, galant sort of way, but really? He is not
that.... um.... well, let's just say he needs to learn a few things, doesn't he? But really, folks,
shouldn't these two know better by now?
Florida State Statutes:
163.3217 Municipal overlay for municipal incorporation.--
1) PURPOSE.--In order to assist in the planning for future municipal incorporation
of a specific geographic area, a county may adopt a municipal overlay as an amendment
to its comprehensive plan. A municipal overlay will allow a county, in cooperation
with the public, to address the future possible municipal incorporation of a specific
geographic area and the impact of municipal incorporation on the provision of public
services to serve the area.
(2) PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND AMENDMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL OVERLAY.--
(a)1. This section applies only in those jurisdictions in which the county has
authorized, by resolution or local ordinance, the development of a municipal overlay
pursuant to the provisions of this section. A county governing body, or a citizens'
organization that represents property owners in the area affected, may sponsor the
preparation of the municipal overlay. [my underline]
2. It shall be the responsibility of the county to prepare the municipal
overlay for an area under its jurisdiction; however, if the sponsor of the municipal
overlay is other than the county, the county may by written agreement authorize the
sponsor to prepare some or all of a proposed municipal overlay.
(b)1. A municipal overlay shall be adopted as an amendment to the local
government comprehensive plan as prescribed by s. 163.3184.
2. A county may consider the adoption of a municipal overlay without
regard to the provisions of s. 163.3187(1) regarding the frequency of
adoption of amendments to the local comprehensive plan.
(3) CONTENTS OF A MUNICIPAL OVERLAY.--A municipal overlay must contain:
(a) Boundary options for the creation of the new municipality.
(b) A feasibility study as outlined in chapter 165.
(c) A map of existing and proposed land uses in the area by type and density.
(d) Population projections for the area.
(e) Data and analysis relating to the provision of public facilities for the area.
(4) FUNDING OF THE MUNICIPAL OVERLAY.--The development of the municipal overlay
shall be funded by the county unless there is written agreement between the county and
another entity to fund it.
History.--s. 7, ch. 96-416.
End Florida State Statute
Do you see what it says about a "citizen's organization"? Read on and see how that is
definitely telling you that it was Maureen Rupe, Mary Tees and Carmine Ferraro who put the
community overlay (now called a "municipal overlay") on PSJ, Frontenac, Williams Point, Delespine,
Hardeeville and part of Sharpes.
Happenings, July 2001; Issue No. 34, Page 32, PSJ For Tomorrow:
QUOTE
"Subsequent to the County Commissioner's unanimous vote to fund the Port St. John
Feasibility Study, our executive committee, at the request of District 1, Brevard County,
met with Tom Harmer, City Manager of Titusville along with some of his staff, to discuss
the concerns raised by Titusville regarding the proposed northern boundary.
"Although the City of Titusville has not taken an official position, Mr. Harmer
stated in a letter dated April 12, 2001 to Tom Jenkins, County Manager, and again
during our later discussions, "that the City has taken a long-standing position on
Kings Highway as the southern boundary of the city's planning area." And although Mr.
Harmer said that he supported this study, he also stated that he would have no choice
but to vigorously oppose us if we were to establish the northern boundary line north
of Kings Highway.
"It has been our hope that we could study the County area of our choice, and
then discuss any changes to boundaries, prior to incorporation, based upon a favorable
outcome of the study. Any action to impede the study now could result in stopping the
entire process from moving forward. Additionally, we do understand the position that Mr.
Harmer is in and have appreciated his and staff's effort to help us work this out.
"It is for these reasons, that it is the position of Port St. John For Tomorrow
(PAC), that in an effort to move the Feasibility Study forward, we are in agreement
with the City of Titusville's request and Brevard County, District 1's concurrence,
to use Kings Highway as the Northern Boundary line for the purposes of the approved
study, with a caveat stating that by agreeing to this new boundary line, it will in
no way preclude us from meeting the minimum statutory requirements in order to be
considered a city."
END QUOTE
Maureen Rupe was one of the people who negotiated the northern boundary. And then there's this:
Happenings, June 2001, Issue No. 133, Page 29, Port St. John For Tomorrow:
"This is a copy of a Press Release that was sent to Florida Today in response
to the recent events regarding the Feasibility Study. We have reprinted it in
its entirety in order that the residents of Port St. John would be kept informed
and up to date. Our comments have been added for the record as follows:
"'We are disappointed that our northern boundary line will be adjusted
to Kings Highway, however, it was made clear to us that this was the only way
to avoid aggressive actions by the City of Titusville, which would delay us
and/or impede the study from moving forward. We have a short time line in which
to complete the study and present it to the State Legislature prior to the
start of the new session early next year. It was also apparent that we could
not garner the support of the County, if Titusville elected to commence legal action.'
"'As part of agreeing to this compromise, it was brought to our attention by
the University of Central Florida (UCF), that FS Chapter 165, mandates that areas
adjacent to the study area be included in analyzing future growth, so data will be
included on the area north of Kings Highway.' [their italics]
"We will be holding a town meeting prior to the issuance of the Residents
survey; please watch the PSJ community center, library and website for the date.
"Mary Tees,
"Maureen Rupe,
"Carmine Ferraro"
END QUOTE
Maureen Rupe's name on her organization's writings. Maureen Rupe
is taking responsibility for negotiating the northern
boundary on PSJ's community overlay. Period.
"And Maureen or any other citizen does not have the
authority to put in place a community overlay." states Robert Roy Rupe, Jr.
Question: IF that be the case, then how was Maureen Rupe involved in the
negotiations and the agreement of the boundaries of the community
overlay? IF she "does not have the authority", then why was she doing it in
the first place? Her own words prove it. Even her own name on the
article proves it!
Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., asked, "How can a referendum for incorporation be a
government scheme?" If you read the statement on Maureen Rupe Exposed,
Mr. Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., you will see that it does not say that
the referendum was a government scheme. It states, "Maureen Rupe spearheaded the
Port St. John incorporation attempt in 2002, but her big government scheme
was exposed and voters trounced it by 72%." The "government scheme" was the fact
that another layer of government on PSJ, Williams Point, Delespine, Hardeeville,
Frontenac and part of Sharpes, would have been another layer of government and a
bigger government. We already have county, state and federal governments over us; we
do not need now -- nor did 72% of the voters think that we needed it then --
another layer of government: city government. That's another layer making it bigger.
If you have a layer cake that is three layers tall,
and you add a fourth layer, doesn't that make the cake
a bigger cake? Does that not make the cake more? The same applies for government:
more makes it bigger. The scheme was in trying to get another layer of government
on the residents, not the vote on whether we wanted it. Did the
cake analogy help, or should I put it in rocket terms? If you have a two stages to a rocket,
each six feet tall, and then you change it and make it a three stage rocket, each
stage six feet tall, doesn't that make it bigger? Or if you have ten programs
to manage and you add another one to manage, doesn't that make the management job bigger?
Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., states: "74% voted for the feasibility study, and to try
to make it as fair as possible, UCF was completely in control." Wrong again. UCF got some of
its information from PSJ For Tomorrow. That does not make UCF completely in control.
The Port St. John Feasibility Study states on page 9:
"Further indications of Port St. John's amenability to self
government are provided by a survey conducted by the Port St. John For Tomorrow
committee."
And on page 27:
"Discussions with commercial real estate representatives in the
Port St. John area, and with members of the Port St. John For Tomorrow Committee,
indicate monthly lease expense to secure a facility suitable to house the city
government will cost approximately $2,000 a month. $500 a month is allotted
for utilities yielding a total fo $2,500 a month. Additionally, an
initial equipment outlay of $10,000 is considered for office furniture and
equipmentn."
I also have an e-mail Dated Wednesday, June 5, 2002, (7:19 p.m.)
from Prof. David Laney himself -- the man who did the study --
that states in part:
"I also had frequent contact with members of Port St. John For Tomorrow
during this period, as they were the defacto representatives of the community."
Also consider the fact, Mr. Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., that on page 5 of the Addendum to
the Port St. John Feasibility Study, there is this statement (and I QUOTE):
"The Study has been revised to reflect the proposal is
submitted on behalf of:
Carmine Ferraro
4265 Quechua Rd.
Port St. John 32927
Maureen Rupe
7185 Bright Ave.
Port St. John 32927
Mary Tees
5115 Fay Blvd
Port St. John 32927
(Close Quote)
See that bit about "The Study has been revised to reflect the proposal is submitted on behalf of:"?
That's your wife listed as the second sponsor of the thing. The community overlay was -- according
to her own words -- negotiated by her; and it was submitted to the State on her behalf. Period.
End of story. Full stop. Don't you love that?
Sigh. I love being right.
Now, let's tackle the CAPIT issue, shall we, Mr. Robert Roy Rupe, Jr.? You say,
"As far as CAPIT, since the lawsuit didn't start until 2002, and
was decided in court in 2004, you realize Maureen could not be responsible
for all tax increases (140%) since 1997? If you took 2004 forward it
would be 43%, but nothing like what you are stating. Sheely's [sic] site that
you refer to is not saying the same thing that you are accusing Maureen
of. "
Well, let's examine that for a moment. What is Maureen Rupe Exposed
accusing Maureen Rupe of? The statement on their homepage is:
"Maureen Rupe sued Brevard County over the tax limiting
CAPIT amendment. Thanks to that lawsuit, your property tax rates
skyrocketed 140%, the County collected those taxes, and the
Commissioners went on a wild spending spree."
According to Mr. Robert Roy Rupe, Jr.'s math, we would have had only
a 43% increase without CAPIT due to Maureen Rupe's lawsuit,
between the years of 2004 and 2007. I don't know how he did his figures.
According to one of the math whizzes I have in my home (I have two: hubby and son),
the number from 2004 to 2007 (rounding up to the nearest whole number) is
a whopping 66%; not the 43% claimed by Robert Roy Rupe, Jr.! Sixty-six percent!
Yeow! Due to one lawsuit in just three years. Ouch.
J. Roger Shealy's website does say the following about CAPIT:
"This type of unrestrained growth would not be possible
had the Board adhered to the will of the people as expressed in 1996.
In that year, 85% of Brevard County voters voted to limit the annual
increase in property tax revenue to 3% or the annual percent change in
inflation; whichever is less (County Charter Amendment commonly
referred to as CAPIT). Had this formula for limited growth been
followed, the growth in property tax revenue would have been
limited to a maximum of 34.4% over the past ten years. Instead,
we’ve seen growth of more than 140%. It is painfully clear that
neither this current Board, nor the Boards that preceded it, have
acted in a way that could be described as fiscally conservative.
As your county commissioner I will uphold the CAPIT Amendment
limiting the growth in taxes and spending."
So Mr. Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., I prove that your assertions and
your math are erroneous. Mr. Shealy's (Bachelor's Degree in Accounting,
Certified CPA, Certified Internal Auditor, "seventeen years in
financial management, accounting, and auditing. Including five
years as a full-time internal auditor for Brevard County":
in other words: math whiz) site does say that the lawsuit
had an impact on our taxes being that high.
Maureen Rupe did sue Brevard County:
that's a fact and Mr. Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., is not disputing that. If the
lawsuit had not happened, would CAPIT still have been in place? I think
so. If it had not been for the lawsuit would our taxes have still been
capped? My guess: probably. Ergo: no lawsuit = lower taxes: lawsuit =
higher taxes. Simple math, really. That one doesn't take a math whiz.
Mr. Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., says,
"You're also forgetting the most important thing.
CAPIT was illegal."
CAPIT was voted in as the will of 85.25% of the people
who voted. Maureen Rupe's lawsuit to stop
CAPIT wasn't just about whether it was constitutional or whether it was a goldfish:
it was about taking away the will of the people. We wanted our taxes to stay down. We
wanted the BOCC to be limited on how much they could raise our taxes (You know, that "Government
of the people, by the people and for the people" thing it mentions both in the US Constitution and the
Florida State Constitution?) and we wanted to have a say
in how much money our county government could take from our children's Christmas presents.
How about the fact that Maureen Rupe was on
the Charter Review Committee the year after the CAPIT amendment was voted in?
Which means she was on the Charter Review Committee the first year the
CAPIT charter amendment was put on the Charter. And CAPIT
wasn't taken off the charter at that time. Why not? Did Maureen Rupe
see nothing unconstitutional about it at that time? Did Maureen Rupe
even think of it not being constitutional? Did Maureen Rupe even once
say, "Hmmmm... I think this thing is wrong and I'd like to take it to court,"
at that time? Or did she wait until opportunity knocked? If there had been a problem
with CAPIT, shouldn't it have been found at that time? Shouldn't it have been fixed
then; some sort of "Woops! We need to put some extra wording in here!" been
done at that time? I think that's when it should have been fixed: before we got used
to the idea of it being there to protect us. But, no. We liked it and we wanted to keep
it and it had to be taken away. Is that not up for question? Why wasn't something
done about it then?
According to Maureen Rupe's own words:
"Good morning. Yeah. Hi. Um... Can I just say
that umm... In 1996 CAPIT was approved by 85% of the voters
on a 19% turnout at the polls. At that time there was no
provision for constitutionality review. The County had an
illegal charter. As limitations on CAPIT had already been
ruled unconstitutional in three counties. In 2002, six years
after it had been in ...in... um, force, these County Commission
chambers were filled with people from throughout the county asking
for relief from cuts in services directly related to CAPIT."
(Again, I point out the words, "CAPIT had already been ruled unconstitutional
in three counties." So why was it that when Maureen Rupe was on the
Charter Review Committee
the year that CAPIT was put into our Charter, that she didn't catch it?)
Oh. I see. It was 2002 that the Commission meeting chambers were "filled with people
from throughout the county asking for relief from cuts in services directly related
to CAPIT." Is that why the lawsuit was filed? Is that what brought about the 140% tax
increase we are now laboring under? Is this why we could have had 34.4% growth but have
140% instead? Is this why it's okay to threaten people? Is it because our taxes were
too low?
Robert Roy Rupe, Jr.'s, protection of his wife is a little late in coming since the
Maureen Rupe Exposed website has been
up since May 16, 2008. Is the problem Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., seems to have with the website
the statements he supposedly deems unfair? Or is it because less than
twenty-four hours prior to Maureen Rupe Exposed,
receiving the threatening e-mail, the Ethics Commission complaint Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., had
filed on Maureen Rupe Exposed
had been posted on that site?
I think I see a pattern emerging here. Agree?
Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927
Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927
Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John,
FL 32927. No candidate approved this advertisement.
Now available:
Coming Soon!
|
