Overall sentiment is mixed but centers on a pattern of strong direct care with uneven administrative and facility-related issues. Many reviewers praise the clinical and caregiving staff — CNAs, nurses, and physical therapists receive frequent positive mentions for providing attentive, effective care. Several accounts describe successful rehabilitation stays that restored walking confidence and allowed residents to move into the independent-living wing, where they enjoy autonomy such as shopping nearby, cooking, and self-managing medications. Numerous reviews specifically call out friendly, helpful, and welcoming staff at the point of care and in many office interactions. Positive descriptions also include clean and well-maintained areas, homey rooms, outdoor patios, a bus for transportation, and consistent caregiver punctuality for private services. For many residents and families the facility provides a safe-feeling environment with organized activities and regular meals, and some note that the pricing is reasonable or affordable compared with alternatives.
However, these positive experiences are counterbalanced by recurring operational and management concerns. Several reviewers allege poor communication, management turnover, and a money-first attitude from administration. Specific financial complaints include disputes over veteran benefits — with claims that staff misrepresented acceptance of VA support or refused retroactive payments — and threats or notices of eviction tied to benefit reliance. There are also allegations of questionable admissions practices and low occupancy that have led some families to formally pursue grievances or arbitration. These issues contribute to a sense among some residents and relatives that the facility prioritizes revenue over consistent resident advocacy.
Facility condition and neighborhood safety are areas of notable divergence. While some reviewers describe the building as clean and well-kept, others call it old, outdated in decor, or poorly maintained (an extreme phrase used was "puke green building"). Outdoor upkeep and certain room-cleaning issues are mentioned sporadically. Safety concerns extend beyond the building to the surrounding location: a few reviews reference police being called for prostitution-related incidents, and there is mention of the property being in a hurricane-prone area, which may factor into perceived risk. These reports create uneven impressions about both physical plant and neighborhood security.
Dining, activities, and staffing levels show clear variability. Multiple reviewers appreciate the availability of three meals a day, refreshments for visitors, and some regular activities; others report horrible food, few activities, limited common sitting spaces, and a lack of a consistent meal plan. Staffing shortages or insufficient support staff are cited as reasons for diminished programming and slower responses to resident needs. Maintenance responsiveness is also inconsistent: several reviewers complain that repair requests went unanswered and the owner or management did not return calls.
Customer service quality appears polarized. Many reviewers describe pleasant, informative, and compassionate employees who explain options and work well with families. Conversely, there are reports of rude, unprofessional behavior, an uneducated front desk with little experience caring for elders, and restrictions such as no weekend tours or scheduling limitations that frustrate prospective residents and families. Cost and transparency are persistent themes — some find the facility reasonably priced while others label it pricey and criticize a perceived lack of honesty around billing and benefit handling.
In summary, Eastside Active Living presents a split profile: strong, compassionate direct care and several practical amenities attract positive feedback and real outcomes (notably rehab success and regained independence), but inconsistent management practices, financial disputes (especially around VA benefits), variable facility upkeep, sporadic staffing shortages, and neighborhood safety concerns create significant negative impressions for other reviewers. Prospective residents and families would likely benefit from focused questions about finances and benefits handling, staffing levels and activity schedules, maintenance responsiveness, and specific safety measures for the neighborhood before deciding. The most reliable pattern in the reviews is that individual experiences vary widely depending on which parts of the operation a resident interacts with — clinical care tends to rate higher than administrative transparency and facility/grounds management.
