| 
Maureen Rupe's Homepage Statement Called into Question
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?
On Maureen Rupe's homepage we see her own words. She introduces herself and says what she cliams to
be the basics of her D1 political promises. Things like being a level headed decision maker and using
common sense. Maureen Rupe writes of protecting our "quaility of life" (I'll get back to you on that one),
job creation and careful management of county dollars (read YOUR money). There is also this on her
homepage:
"I will work with you to have a strong managed growth"
A "strong managed growth"? Strong? Is that right? Everything Maureen Rupe stands for is against growth.
How can she claim to support a "strong" managed growth? Look at the truth.
At the October 6, 2006 BOCC Regular meeting, Maureen Rupe spoke to the BOCC and said the following:
"Maureen Rupe stated she went to the meeting that the City of Titusville
had on the issue of the building height limit. She noted at that meeting there was a
representative on the dais from Titan America, which is the largest cement distributor
in the State, Tarmac Cement Mixed Concrete/Concrete Block supplier. She stated the
company was trying to persuade people to vote against having a height limit because
of their plant, which is eight miles outside of Titusville and has 80-foot concrete
silos and a 65-foot radial stacker."
To me, that convoluted opening statement (yes she said more, equally as confusing), says that Maureen Rupe was for
the idea of height restriction because she seemed upset about Titusville having someone on the dais who
was agaisnt having the height limit.
In an e-mail that was posted on the publicly accessible bulletin board for the Audubon Society
(Turtle Coast Chapter), was a message from Maureen in which she says,
"The Grassroots Group "Titusville River Watch" that has collected petitions
to put to the November ballot a height limit of 35 feet in the city of Titusville,
is being opposed by a group of developers and pro-growth advocates called "Save Titusville's Future, Inc."
Save Titusville's Future has hired a PR firm by the name of "Environmental PR Group". Megan Mack is the
spokesperson. "Save Titusville's Future, Inc." is calling environmental groups for support, asking
to speak at each environmental group's meetings. Their argument is taller is better because it
concentrates density in a small place allowing more area to save from development. The problem is
they make more money and nothing gets put aside for conservation because of these high rises.
Nothing is saved, nothing is rezoned to a lower density, it's just put off until they
can get to developing the land around it."
.....
"Almost all of the contributors are in development, real estate, or the construction business
+ an attorney for their guidance. This is wrong that they are trying to use us....sneaking
into the environmental camps with a Titusville-sounding name."
So Maureen Rupe's an advocate for "strong managed growth" when she shuns "development, real estate or the construction business"?
Sure sounds like a "strong managed growth" proponent to me!
How about this little ditty from Mike Moehle's article
excerpted from The Brevard Insider? Sounds pretty "strong managed growth" proponent to me:
"Even Maureen Rupe's proposal to place a moratorium on the issuance
of all building permits throughout Brevard County (including all cities) if any of the
affected roads, schools, fire protection, sewer capacity, police, water, etc., were at
capacity, was met with rousing applause from the audience."
In another Audubon posting, Maureen Rupe writes (in part),
"I hear that developers/builders are coming out in force to the workshops on the SEAS ordinance."
"It is imperative we all attend these meetings. This is probably the last chance we have to save the remaining
sensitive lands."
Maureen Rupe is alerting the masses to the fact that "developers/builders" are going to be there reads to me as though it's a
pro-growth statement. Yep. Sounds pretty "strong managed growth" friendly to me. Agree?
In another posting by Sarah Linney, it says,
"At the beginning of the meeting Maureen Rupe will be presenting two
amendments. IVA is her proposals #23 Requiring necessary infrastructure be in place
before starting developments and #24 County Urban Growth and Service Boundries."
(Little note here: How can Maureen Rupe propose that necessary infrastructure be in place before starting
developments when "starting developments" means putting in infrastructure? Circular logic anyone?) But
those recommendations certainly sound like they support "strong managed growth" to me. Don't you think?
Maureen Rupe writes about annexations:
"There are too many annexations happening that are negatively impacting
unincorporated Brevard or neighboring cities. One example is when a city annexes
and rezones the land to a higher density on development adjacent to other residential areas."
Higher density equals "strong managed growth" to me. I think if you are going to grow you need to have
higher densities. NYC is a higher density place; they had no room to grow out, so they had to grow up. Simple,
yes? "Higher densities" mean that there has been strong growth, yes? I think the truest part of Maureen Rupe's homepage
statement is that Maureen Rupe wants to be the one to manage the growth. Or should I say, "No Growth"?
We've already seen how willing Maureen Rupe is to sue
to get what she wants from the county. How many more lawsuits (costing Brevard County
taxpayers a bundle each time) will it take for Maureen Rupe to be satisfied?
"I agree.
We have to realize that the only way to fight these density/environmental
issues at the local level is going to be in the courts."
And how much does Maureen Rupe wish to spend for her "strong managed growth" plans? It's your guess or mine,
but we know she is willing to sue, we know she is willing to travel (Tallahassee, Viera from PSJ, etc.) and we
know that she is willing to spend hours trying to find ways to save the environment.... My sorry. I mean find
a way to have "strong managed growth". And below is an example of her spending proclivities.
"This property is extremely important to the whole ecosystem of the Indian and Banana
Rivers, as well to our grandchildren's children. We will regret it if we don't do everything
possibly [sic] can for the preservation of these islands.
"To pass this purchase, there must be at least a 4 to 1 vote to
purchase the property above appraised value.
Jackie Colon and Helen Voltz voted no on fiscal responsibility. This is NOT a budget item. This is a
self-imposed tax we voted in to Save Critical Habitat. [my bolding]"
She is willing to "purchase the property above appraised value." She sent the e-mail supporting the idea
and urging members in the Partnership for a Sustainable Future and the Audubon Society to be at the meeting
to support the purchase "above appraised value."
Are you willing to pay that kind of cost even more often if Maureen Rupe gets elected? Is Maureen Rupe a
proponent for "strong managed growth", or just "No Growth"? How much are
you willing to pay for Maureen Rupe's final thought on that posting?:
"Don't let nature down."
The "Just Say NO to Maureen Rupe" pages!
Now available:
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
|
