The reviews present a strongly mixed to negative overall impression, with a consistent tension between warmly described staff and attractive exterior features on one hand, and serious cleanliness, dining, and regulatory concerns on the other. Multiple reviewers praise the interpersonal side of care — staff are repeatedly characterized as caring, competent, and respectful, and the facility is described as having a calm atmosphere. The property itself also receives positive mention: reviewers note a charming historic building, a wrap-around porch, flower baskets, and manicured grounds, and point out that the operation appears family-run.
Despite these positives, the dominant and most serious themes in the reviews are cleanliness and sanitation failures. Reviewers explicitly use the word "filthy" and call out problems in bathrooms and the dining room. One review states that issues were reported to the state licensing office and that a letter documenting problems exists; these comments indicate that concerns may have reached the level of formal complaints or regulatory scrutiny. A particularly troubling detail is that a shared bathroom serves about ten people, which raises clear issues of privacy, hygiene, and infection control in a congregate care setting.
Dining quality and food service are additional weak points in the reviews. Food is described as "sloppy," and dining-room sanitation is singled out as problematic. Reviewers also note that the facility is expensive, suggesting that cost does not match perceived quality of meals, cleanliness, and overall care. This combination — poor food, unsanitary dining areas, and high cost — amplifies dissatisfaction.
Management and oversight are an important concern emerging from the summaries. While family-run ownership can yield a personal, attentive atmosphere (and reviewers do highlight the family-run aspect positively), the presence of reported regulatory complaints and written documentation of problems suggests potential systemic or managerial shortcomings in maintaining basic standards. The reviews imply a disconnect: staff may be kind and competent in their interpersonal interactions, but facilities maintenance, sanitation practices, and perhaps administrative follow-through appear inadequate.
There is little specific information provided about activities, programming, clinical care beyond staff competence, or staffing levels; the silence on structured activities could mean reviewers focused on other issues or that programming was not a notable feature. Taken together, the pattern is clear: the facility offers a pleasant exterior and cordial staff, but these strengths are overshadowed by serious cleanliness, dining, and regulatory issues that reviewers say materially affect the resident experience. Several reviewers use very strong negative language ("nightmare," "one of the worst places around," "not good overall"), indicating that for some families these problems were significant enough to dominate their judgment.
For prospective residents and families, these reviews suggest specific areas to investigate further before committing: directly inspect interior cleanliness (bathrooms and dining areas), ask how many residents share bathrooms and what infection-control practices are in place, request recent state inspection or complaint resolution records, sample the food and view mealtime conditions, and ask management how they address sanitation complaints. The contrast between caring staff and serious environmental problems means that verifying corrective actions and regulatory status is especially important when evaluating this facility.
