Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans negative, with recurring praise for individual staff members and basic services contrasted by numerous, consistent complaints about cleanliness, maintenance, activities, and communication. Multiple reviewers explicitly called out friendly, helpful, or knowledgeable staff (including a cited owner), availability of therapy services and on-site clinical presence (doctor/nurse), and simple practical advantages like two meals a day, coffee, and a month-to-month option. At the same time, many reviewers described the facility as dated, small, and in need of remodeling or refurbishment; this split (some calling rooms adequate and comfortable while many call them outdated or unclean) is a notable pattern.
Care quality and staffing: Reviews paint a conflicted picture. Several reviewers reported attentive, helpful staff and good care, with therapy and clinical support available and some recommending the facility. Conversely, an equal or greater number of reviews allege neglectful or poor care: unclean rooms and bathrooms, urine smells, staff on phones, rude behavior, foul language, and inaction during visits. There are multiple accounts of staff unprofessionalism — including smoking on the premises, arguments among staff observed by visitors, and failure to return calls — which raises consistent concerns about management, staff training, and day-to-day resident oversight. These conflicting reports suggest uneven staff performance or inconsistent management practices leading to variable resident experiences.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Cleanliness and maintenance are the most frequently cited negative themes. Several reviewers described dirty interiors (showers, bathrooms, rooms) and unpleasant odors; others described dirty exteriors, cluttered grounds, and “junk everywhere.” Some reviewers explicitly said the property was well-kept and the layout was good, but the dominant impression is a facility that is aging and not uniformly maintained. Visitors mentioned dark, tunnel-like hallways and an empty or uninviting lobby, which contributes to a gloomy, institutional feel in parts of the building. The transportation van was noted as an amenity but several flagged it as being in poor condition. Overall, the facility appears to offer only basic amenities — crafts room and dining area are present, but there is reportedly no exercise room and limited recreational spaces.
Activities and community life: Activity programming and social engagement are another area of concern. A number of reviewers said activities were “standard” but not demonstrated during tours; others said there were effectively no activities and residents were kept in rooms or were heavily incapacitated, with little encouragement to socialize. Some reviewers explicitly described the community as geared toward disabled or less-active residents rather than an active senior population. Positive comments about activities are fewer and less specific, meaning prospective residents should expect modest programming oriented to residents with higher care needs rather than robust activity offerings.
Dining and meals: Meals are one of the clearer positives: multiple reviewers noted that two meals a day are provided and that the dining area itself can be pleasant; coffee being offered was also mentioned. However, concerns about kitchen cleanliness and dining-area maintenance were also reported (floor not cleaned), and one reviewer said the dining area felt uninviting despite being described as nice by another. The takeaway is that basic meal service exists, but standards and atmosphere may vary.
Management, tours, and transparency: Several reviews complain about misleading or incomplete tours and website information. Short or poor tours, negative interactions with tour staff, and missing showings of key areas (rooms, dining, activities) were described. There are complaints about management responsiveness — no callbacks and unhelpful phone assistance — and about waiting for Medicaid/state funding in some cases, which may affect admissions and payment processes. These patterns indicate potential communication and transparency problems that could affect prospective residents' decision-making.
Notable patterns and considerations for prospective residents: The strongest patterns are (1) reliable reports of friendly individual staff and available clinical services, and (2) equally reliable reports of cleanliness, maintenance, and programming shortcomings. The facility appears small and may be better suited for residents who require higher levels of assistance rather than those seeking an active-living environment. The mixed nature of reviews suggests inconsistent standards: some visitors saw clean, well-kept rooms and praised staff, while others encountered unclean conditions, odors, or inattentive personnel. Smoking on site, staff unprofessionalism, and poor management communication recur enough to be red flags.
Recommendations for decision-making: Prospective residents or families should insist on a thorough, unhurried tour that includes bedrooms, bathrooms, the dining room during a meal, activity areas, and outdoor grounds; observe resident engagement and staff interactions; ask to see the kitchen or inquire about cleaning schedules; ask specifically about staffing ratios, training, and smoking policies; inspect the transportation van if relied upon; and confirm payment/Medicaid procedures and lease terms (including the month-to-month option). If cleanliness, an active social program, or up-to-date facilities are priorities, this facility may require careful vetting. If the priority is a quieter, medically supported environment with friendly individual caregivers and a flexible lease, some reviewers found it acceptable. The mixed feedback underscores the importance of an in-person assessment and asking targeted questions about the issues repeatedly raised in reviews.
