Manteno resident warns of grid 'kill switch,' urges land-disclosure law over Goshen project
Loading...
Summary
A Manteno resident urged disclosure of foreign land purchases and raised national-security concerns about a Goshen development, citing a potential remotely controlled 'kill switch' and urging passage of the 'American Land Protection Act'; village leaders said they are monitoring the situation but took no formal action.
A Manteno resident identified at the meeting as Jim used his public-comment time to raise alarm over a project associated with Goshen, saying a remotely controlled "kill switch" could be used "to sabotage our electric grid" and urged federal-style disclosure requirements for foreign land purchases.
"Kill switch that can be controlled remotely to sabotage our electric grid by how much power they will be able to pull," Jim said during the public-comment period, adding that such interference could affect "government, military, and nuclear power resources." He urged support for the American Land Protection Act, saying it "will require foreign entities to disclose purchase of land" and that disclosure would help flag risky transactions.
Jim also alleged that nondisclosure agreements had been used to create shell organizations that "front for illegal and illicit ventures," and referenced a recent shipping-container attack in the Russia–Ukraine war as an example he said shows the risk of stored containers. He recommended that, instead of donating vehicles, Goshen should supply personal protective equipment and turnout gear to local law enforcement.
Village officials did not take formal action in response to the comments. At later points in the meeting the mayor and other trustees said they continue to attend meetings with Goshen representatives. Sergeant Scully told the board the village's related civil case is in a "holding pattern" at the request of the plaintiff's attorney.
The remarks were delivered during a public-comment slot and represent the speaker's claims and proposals; they were not presented as findings of the village or of any government agency. The board did not announce any immediate policy or enforcement steps in response to the comment.
The village meeting packet and staff were not cited during the public comment; no ordinance, hearing date, or official change to village policy was announced in connection with the statements.
