This is a paid political advertisement or something or another communication and I paid for it. Whatever political disclaimers are necessary for just about everything listed is here, just as a CYA. "I" am the person listed below in the disclaimers.

Paid political advertisement. Paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927 No candidate approved this advertisement.

Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927 (Section 106.1439, F.S.)

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

And, ya' know, our US Constitution used to call it "Freedom of Speech". What happened to that?

This page will tell you the TRUTH about Maureen Rupe's "Issues" page comments. Kick yer shoes off and sit a spell. May as well get comfy; this may take a while.

Maureen Rupe has an "Issues" page. On that page, there are five links: "Budgetary Challenges and Opportunities"; "Economic Development"; "Property Tax Relief"; "Sustainable Growth Management"; and "Environmental Impacts". Isn't that "Commissionerly"? Maureen Rupe knows the words. I'm impressed.

In Maureen Rupe's "Budgetary Challenges and Opportunities" page, we see that Maureen Rupe wishes to "right-size our County budget." Is Maureen Rupe planning on doing the same kind of "right-sizing" for the County as she did for the proposed City of Port St. John back in 2002? You remember the one: it had four (count 'em: four!) pages. It was put together by the hard work and sweat of the brow of Amy Tidd, past candidate for District 4 County Commission (and loser). It was published and stood behind by Port St. John for Tomorrow as a realistic, operating, city budget. On the bottom of page four it states (and on all three other pages: "April 25, 2002" on pages one and two; "5-9-2002" on page three):

"Submitted by Port St. John For Tomorrow May 9, 2002"
No one in Port St. John for Tomorrow refuted it as being the worthless piece of idiocy that it was. No one. Not even current District 1 County Commission candidate, Maureen Rupe. In this "bodge-it" (which is what it truly was), there are items listed such as "Postage 2,000" and "Books and Subscriptions 100" (numbers represent dollar amounts). Sound reasonable for a city of over (then) 22,000? I see "Mileage- Staff and Council 1,500" and "Copying and Printing 5,000" but I do not see where they included the fact that we would have to hire a Planning Consultant and "hiring" means "paying"! Amy Tidd put hours into this thing: even going to Cocoa to review their budget. She said that she found out -- simply by looking at their budget for a few hours -- that Cocoa's budget was off by $11 Million! Which soon changed to $17 Million. And she never said if it were for the good (they had $11-$17 million more than they thought) or the bad (they had $11-$17 million less than they thought). Maureen Rupe heard her say at least one of these statements and did not refute her, nor shut her up! Which means that Maureen Rupe stood by the lie that Amy Tidd was telling and, in doing so, supported the slander against the people who worked in Cocoa's accounting and budgeting areas.

Is this how Maureen Rupe will "right-size" the County's budget? By using a "bodge-it", to spend County money and pay County bills? Maureen Rupe did not stop the lies even though she had the resources: public meetings, her column in Happenings, the editorial page of Florida Today, the backs of t-shirts if she wanted. But Maureen Rupe chose not to. Maureen Rupe did not refute the "bodge-it". Maureen Rupe let it stand, and as Vice President of Port St. John for Tomorrow, allowed her organization's name to be put on the "bodge-it" that Port St. John for Tomorrow published and tried to use to incorporate Port St. John and forcibly incorporate the communities of Delespine, Hardeeville, Frontenac and Williams Point. "Right-size"? For who? Let's take a comparative look at what Maureen Rupe supported to reality. Then we'll see the truth of the "bodge-it" Maureen Rupe stood behind. Will she "right-size" the County budget if she gets elected, and do you want to live in Brevard County with that kind of budget?

And, so we move on to Maureen Rupe's "Economic Development" section. In paragraph one of this section Maureen Rupe states: "The importance of financial security for our residents cannot be overstressed." In paragraph two she adds, "In a climate of climbing fuel and food costs, adequate paying jobs are a critical component of our county’s future." "Adequate"? If this is a climate of "climbing fuel and food costs", shouldn't we be wanting to bring into Brevard County high paying jobs? Jobs that will help see our residents through these financially difficult times? Nope. Not according to Maureen Rupe's own words. She wants to get in "adequate" paying jobs. (Isn't that special?) After all, adequacy is "critical to our county's future". And shouldn't we all want jobs that are just "adequate"? Shouldn't that make us jump for joy? But who decides what is "adequate"? Maureen Rupe, apparently. Myself? I'd be pushing for something that will continue to pay the people of Brevard County the high wages they are used to getting so that they can maintain the -- Maureen's catch phrase -- "quality of life" they are accustomed to. The goal of the Brevard County Commission should be to bring jobs in to replace the lost Space Center jobs that will maintian or raise the pay levels paid by the current employers; not reduce it to adequacy so that people are just scraping by. And, yet, that is what Maureen Rupe's own words say she wants to do. Sounds to me as though Maureen Rupe wants us to have a very hard time ahead and she is willing to publish that. Personally, I don't think I want Maureen Rupe deciding for my family and I what is "adequate" for us.

Note: Since posting this particular page, Maureen Rupe has changed her "Property Tax Relief" page and removed the bit about "Save Our Homes". She apparently did not like me proving she had the dreaded tax relief on her house and that she accepted the dreaded thing that "led to the current disparity in assessments". She likes to remove evidence of her hypocricy and, usually, she likes to do it quickly (as she did with her "The History of PSJ's Incorporation" page less than twenty-three hours after I posted my page refuting hers), but this one took her a little while. So I have to make a note here and -- even though her page has changed the truth has not -- so I suppose you'll have to either trust me or contact Maureen Rupe and ask her if she changed things.

"Property Tax Relief" (NOTE: No longer available as first posted: she changed it to the current link.) is Maureen Rupe's next "Issues" subject. (NOTE: In the original:) She says, "Well intended past efforts to provide security to long term residents (e.g., 1994’s “Save Our Homes”), have led to the current disparity in assessments that now burdens many of our residents." I guess she doesn't like disparities. She wants us all to be the same. She wants us all to pay the same in taxes. I suppose that means Maureen Rupe is against the "Save Our Homes" tax reduction. Wouldn't that mean that she would turn it down and not accept it on her own property? Yes? I mean, unless she's a hypocrite or something, if Maureen Rupe hates a particular tax reduction enough to use it as an example and name it on her site, wouldn't that tell you something about how strongly she felt about it; about how much she despises it? Maybe this should, too.

Maureen Rupe's "Property Tax Relief" section is incredible, no? She sued the County in order to make sure our taxes stayed high, and then she has the nerve to put the responsibility of our county taxes on the State Legislature! Residents in Brevard County wanted to control Brevard County taxes and yet, according to Maureen Rupe's law suit and her election pages, we can't do that because we don't have the constitutional right. You know what the first item delineated in the Florida Constitution is? It says (quote):

"SECTION 1. Political power.--All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people."
And yet, according to Maureen Rupe and the ruling, which I strongly and vehemently disagree with, we -- "the people" -- have no such power. And Maureen Rupe helped that come about. Thanks, Maureen. I appreciate that and our 140% higher taxes more than I can say.

Note: I have been doing some research into the CAPIT background and I will be publishing that as soon as I finish putting it together. I think you may like what I have to say: unless, that is, your name is Maureen Rupe or one of the others who helped her sue the county to raise our taxes. Then, I wouldn't read that page if I were you. You may not be able to show your face in public again.

"Sustainable Growth Management" was partially covered in my No Maureen Rupe 2 page in an effective way. I showed that her "The History of PSJ's Incorporation" page was not the truth and how the truth effectively reflects her views on rural areas becoming cities: she supports the idea. Not only does she support it, but she works on it for at least six years and then she forms a group to support it, gets studies done to support it, and then she tries to convince others to support it. Okay. She's for growth of some sort: governmental. But "Sustainable Growth Management"? What, exactly, does that mean?

When I did a Google search for the definition of the term "Sustainable Growth Management", the search returned twelve results. None of them a definition of "Sustainable Growth Management" even though that is what I had asked for. Most referred to businesses. I had done a different kind of Google search for the same thing prior to searching for the dictionary definition, and was quite surprised by what I found. What would you say if I told you that the exact actions that are being sold (as in sold down the river) to the people of Brevard County by the people in groups that Maureen Rupe belongs to (some she even heads) are preached (yes, that is the correct word) and described on this website? Read it. Even if you just read the title of the page. Read it. Look at some of the headings, "Strategies for Stopping Growth in Local Communities"; "Eliminate the growth-promotion focus of local government by election or initiative." And the first sentence under that heading? "The best way to eliminate the growth-promotion focus of a local community would be to elect local officials willing to support a no-growth agenda." Read the rest of the page, and other headers like, "Take private land out of development by acquiring it and holding it in public trust."; "Stop the job formation that fuels further growth." ("Adequate" pay, anyone?); and "Create a permanent urban growth boundary to physically limit further growth in the form of sprawl." which is explained as (my bolding):

"While downzoning to lower densities can block upward expansion within a community, a permanent urban growth boundary would eliminate prospects for growing outward. The permanence of the boundary could in turn be furthered by establishing a greenbelt of protected land around the community. This greenbelt could be created by regulatory techniques like exclusive agricultural zones, large parcel zoning with associated clustering of any limited development, and land-use regulations used in conjunction with techniques such as conservation easements. In many communities regulatory actions alone will not suffice to stop growth, and communities will have to supplement changes in land-use regulations with the strategy of public land acquisition."
What is Maureen Rupe always, always, always pushing for? How much of Brevard County is already set aside for "green" space? Does this sound like something I just quoted? Who pushed for EELS? Maureen Rupe. Who heads "Partnership for a Sustainable Future? Maureen Rupe. Who is a member of the Sierra Club? Etc.? We are already affected by this ideology. Shall we elect to office someone who will multiply it? And, what is it called when "The State" owns everything? Hint: starts with Commu...

And in "Environmental Impacts", on three things I have comments:

  • "...we must listen to our environment to maintain a healthy home for all our residents."   Puhlease! If I listen to the environment you know what I hear? I hear it saying, "I'm more powerful than you. I am stronger than you. I can wipe you out in a heartbeat." Tornadoes. Floods. Earthquakes. Lightning strikes. Hurricanes. Landslides. The earth can wipe us out in a flash and we should be afraid of it, not listening to it. We are pawns in its game and we have as much permanent impact as a fly on a horse's backside. We build roads out of concrete or asphalt and the earth reclaims them. We build skyscrapers and the earth knocks them down. We build monuments to ourselves and the earth says, "Oh, yeah? Watch this!" and our monuments are gone. If the enviornment wants to say something, it speaks up loud and clear, no "ifs, ands, or buts about it." We hear the earth -- the enviornment -- without even trying to listen!

  • "Preliminary studies suggest..." and preliminary studies suggested that eggs were bad for you, too. But look at the new research and learn that eggs are actually good for you and that if you don't eat them you won't get some of the benefits. I am NOT saying that you should go breathe in particulates: I am saying that preliminary studies are often proven wrong and the longer people have to look at the results, the more informed those results will be. I do not believe in "preliminary studies" and I don't think we should panic because this or that "suggests". By the way, when was it you first noticed the two power plants in this area: Before or after you moved in, Maureen Rupe? Because if you saw them prior to moving here, then what are you complaining about?

  • "...through persistent efforts by our current Commissioner Scarborough, myself..."    "...FPL has agreed..." LOL! More like FPL has decided on an economic basis that it would financially beneficial to change the PSJ plant into the natural gas plant. I very seriously doubt that any pressure at all was going to make FPL do something -- anything -- that was not financially to their benefit. After all, they are a publicly held company and publicly held companies don't bow to the pressures of these people. They make profits for their shareholders. That is their job! They keep the pension funds of the retirees invested in them making money so that those retirees can live comfortably without eating dog food instead of steak. That is the reason FPL decided to make the change: profit not because some minor characters in local politics were asking them, "Pretty please!" Get over yourself.

The "Just Say NO to Maureen Rupe" pages!

Now available:

/images/nomr7.jpg /images/nomr8.jpg images/nomr9.jpg images/nomr10.jpg /images/nomr11.jpg /images/nomr12.jpg /images/nomr13.jpg

Coming Soon:


Paid political advertisement. Paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927 No candidate approved this advertisement.

Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927 (Section 106.1439, F.S.)

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Home; Tribute; D1 Race; Maureen Rupe Rebuttal Pages; No Maureen Rupe 1; No Maureen Rupe 2; No Maureen Rupe 3; No Maureen Rupe 4;
No Maureen Rupe 5; No Maureen Rupe 6; No Maureen Rupe 7; No Maureen Rupe 8; No Maureen Rupe 9; No Maureen Rupe 10; No Maureen Rupe 11; No Maureen Rupe 12; No Maureen Rupe 13;
Writers; B'Ann's Writings;
Government Links;Al Yorston Questionnaire; J. Roger Shealy Questionnaire; PSJ Info; Religion; Services; Politics; My Links; My Blog "True Conservative" Defined

Editorial Cartoons: PSJ Incorporation; Disclaimer...; "Strong Managed Growth": More to come!

Remember: Anyone who does not give you a wake-up call when they see you being stupid, self-destructive, or both, just plain doesn't care about you. It's those of us who do wake you up who care.

This website created by, maintained by and copyright 2008 by Linda McKinney; because Freedom isn't Free, but speech supposedly is!
Do NOT copy without prior written permission from the author.