Residents criticize Goshen project and local candidates; board urges civility and notes public hearings

Several residents at the Jan. 21 Village of Manteno board meeting used the public‑comment period to criticize a proposed Goshen project, allege insider benefits, and describe a polarized local election atmosphere; trustees replied that the project went through public hearings and asked residents to remain civil.

George Reichert, a resident and public commenter, said he supports the Manteno Freedom Party over the Manteno Choice Party and complained that campaign signs and messaging felt “shoved down my throat.” Reichert said he believes property owners displaying signs indicate support for the Goshen plant and questioned fundraising disclosures, saying, “I see your war chest, $20,000 for a local collection.”

Bobby Forsyth objected to out‑of‑town donors and questioned the scope and cost of Legacy Park improvements, calling the Phase 2 work “a million dollars for a fishing pier” and asking whether the village would assume additional liability or staffing costs such as lifeguards. Forsyth also criticized local officials for not performing an environmental impact study and questioned the qualifications of a staff member to sign off on “chemical” matters.

Francine Fatima delivered a nationally framed political statement referencing the Jan. 20 presidential transition and said foreign actors tied to Goshen were a concern; she said, “Make no mistake, that is a fact.” Paul Motel, who identified himself as running for trustee on the Manteno Freedom Party ticket, urged civility and asked residents to stop posting “ill mannered” comments on social media. He said the recent behavior of some supporters was “unacceptable and unnecessary.”

Sandy Chish said the Goshen project was “snuck in” and alleged a property sale involving the mayor’s family, adding that the situation has “ruined so many of your reputations and caused so much dissension in our town.” Chish said a referendum would have avoided the controversy.

Trustee responses and board process: Trustee Crockett said increased public participation had a positive side, noting more residents are attending meetings than in prior years and that board members seek to improve the village. Another trustee (board chair) responded to calls for a referendum by saying multiple public hearings were held — by the village board, the planning commission, the school board, the library board and the fire department board — and that the meetings were publicly posted with “proper notices.” Trustees emphasized that not every village decision can be submitted to a referendum and that elected officials must make decisions based on the information gathered.

Election‑related restraint: The board said it would not make public comments about election campaigns to avoid interfering with the election, and asked that candidates and residents let “our actions decide our fate.” No formal action, investigation or referral was taken by the board during the meeting in response to the allegations; several residents asked for additional transparency or process changes but no binding direction was recorded.

Why it matters: The public comments reflect community tensions about development, trust in local decision‑making, and a contentious local election season. Trustees urged civility and reiterated the village’s procedural record of hearings.