Manteno residents accuse Goshen project of hidden ties, taxpayer-funded promotion

Multiple Manteno residents used the Village Board public-comment period on Feb. 18 to accuse officials of approving the Goshen industrial project without full disclosure about foreign ties and to allege taxpayer money was used to pay a publicity firm that promoted the project.

At the start of public comment, Bob Forsyth criticized trustees for what he characterized as a pattern of votes he described as pre‑programmed “yes” decisions and questioned whether public money and outside groups had been used to influence local support for Goshen. Forsyth said, “Money drives everybody here.”

Tim Finegan accused Goshen of being “a front” with Chinese ownership and alleged that required training for employment sent people to China. Finegan said, “Goshen is a front. It's owned by the Chinese. All money will go to China.”

Sandy Chin cited filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and said a disclosure she reviewed did not admit that Goshen was partially subsidized by the People’s Republic of China until April 30, 2024, which Chin said was later than other registrations related to the project. “There was no filing admitting that Goshen was partially subsidized by the People's Republic Of China… until 04/30/24,” she said.

Diane Baker said she had obtained invoices that she said show the village paid a publicity firm to promote Goshen. Baker said the invoices carried the byline “pro public affairs, Goshen,” that the bills were paid from village general funds and that the invoices she examined amounted to “over $46,000” and could be “up to $66,000.” She told the board: “Why is Manteno paying to promote Goshen?”

Jerry Daley raised public-safety and land-use concerns, saying trustees voted to reclassify property to permit heavier industrial uses despite resident opposition and cautioned that a future accident could affect residents’ health. He said, “You had a 25 year veteran fire chief tell you it's not a matter of if, but when a fire would happen.”

Francine (last name variously pronounced) invoked trustees’ statutory duty as fiduciaries and urged the board to act to “get rid of Goshen,” referencing calls among some residents for the project to be canceled.

Mayor John Geske and trustees did not provide an extended response during the public-comment period. Following public comment, the meeting proceeded to the consent agenda and other business.

Why it matters: Residents pressed the board for detail about who paid for promotion of the Goshen project, whether any foreign funding or influence exists, and whether the village exercised appropriate oversight before approving land-use changes. The comments cited a mixture of documentary claims (invoices and FARA filings) and personal assertions about safety and local impacts. No formal board action on the Goshen project was taken during the Feb. 18 meeting; the remarks were part of the public-comment record.

Board members and staff did not present independent documentary clarifications during the meeting. Several speakers asked the board to investigate alleged misuse of general-fund dollars and to disclose documents they said were missing or delayed.

The record: Public commenters named specific sources and documents but did not present board verification during the meeting. Sandy Chin identified specific FARA dates; Diane Baker described a series of paid invoices and gave an aggregate estimate. The board did not announce any follow-up assignment on the record at the meeting’s close.

What to watch: Residents requested legal review and potential audits; any future staff report, legal opinion or formal investigation mentioned on the board agenda would provide verification of the spending and the FARA-related timeline that residents described.