MSFI committee recommends sale of 100 Church Street after residents and abutters clash over safety and stewardship

The Keene Municipal Services, Facilities & Infrastructure Committee voted to recommend that the city manager be authorized to negotiate and execute the sale of a small city-owned parcel at 100 Church Street, sending the item to the full City Council for final action.

The parcel is a fenced green corner near Railroad Square that neighbors and tenants said has become a focal point for public-drug use, open drinking and litter. Paul Rodenhauser, who identified himself as a manager of nearby buildings, told the committee that the buyers’ plan is "private ownership," and that a primary goal is tenant safety: "The plan is private ownership, and that's the clear, you know, differential between publicly owned land and privately owned land." The committee motion to recommend sale passed by a 4-1 vote with one member opposed; the motion was seconded by Councilor Filio and will be considered by the full 15-member City Council next Thursday.

Why it matters

Residents who live adjacent to the parcel said ongoing activity on the city-owned land has reduced their sense of safety and access to services. Tenants and building managers said they have repeatedly called police and that tenants have reported being afraid to use nearby dumpsters and to walk near the site after dark. Opponents of the sale warned that transferring the land to private ownership would merely push the public-safety issues to other neighborhoods rather than solve them.

What the committee heard

Public comment at the MSFI meeting included a contested mix of proposals. Several nearby residents urged the committee to keep the property in public ownership and support a neighborhood-led maintenance plan. Michelle Challis, 25 Beach Street, said the city must not "sell, develop green spaces just because of their social challenges," adding: "People need a respectful place to go to the bathroom. We as a city are not providing that." Resident Ken Cost said selling the space would simply shift problems: "Selling the green space, I don't think would solve the problem. It's simply shifted." Other neighbors, including tenants at 110 Church Street, described repeated problems at the site and supported private ownership so abutters could control access and enforce no-trespass rules.

City staff outlined mitigation options the city could undertake if the property remained public. Don Lussier, Public Works director, said short-term measures — removing a planted berm, adding fencing on the north and east sides, and installing signage — could be implemented quickly. He noted lighting would take longer because Eversource work and equipment ordering can add weeks; he estimated lead time for utility-installed lighting at about six weeks. Public works later provided a concrete cost example: a prior 20-foot fence installation cost about $3,500.

Opponents and proponents of the sale both told the committee they hoped for immediate, practical fixes if the city retained ownership. Multiple speakers said a downtown comfort station (public restroom) would address some problems but that a porta-potty at the site would be vulnerable to vandalism and misuse. Some residents offered to pursue neighborhood stewardship; others said the timeline and organization for such a plan had not materialized.

Committee action and next steps

A committee member moved to "recommend that the city manager be authorized to do all things necessary to negotiate and execute the sale of 100 Church Street, Parcel Number 570-415." The motion was seconded by Councilor Filio. The committee reported the vote as 4 in favor, 1 opposed. The recommendation is nonbinding; the City Council will make the final decision at its next meeting.

Clarifying context and limits

Speakers and staff repeatedly distinguished between discussion, staff direction and formal action: the MSFI committee's vote was a recommendation, not the final sale. Staff and the city attorney noted that if the city sold the property, purchasers would still be subject to zoning and permitting requirements; a deed restriction is legally possible but, if violated, the property could revert to the city.

What was not decided

The committee did not approve any deed restrictions, nor did it accept a formal, funded neighborhood maintenance plan. The committee also did not finalize specific city-funded mitigation measures before referring the sale to the full council.

Ending

The matter will come before the full City Council for final action next Thursday. The committee asked that any community plans or formal offers by neighborhood groups be provided in writing for council consideration before that meeting.