Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Many reviewers praise Island Shores for its pleasant staff, attractive grounds, waterfront views, and perceived value — especially relative to other Staten Island options — while a substantial number of reviews contain severe allegations about management, policy enforcement, and ethics that generate very strong negative reactions. The result is a community that appears to provide a comfortable independent-living environment for many residents, but also one that is the subject of recurring, serious complaints that prospective residents and families should investigate further.
Care quality and the nature of services is a recurring theme. Several reviewers describe Island Shores as an independent-living community with on-site nursing/medical personnel and routine services like housekeeping and meals, and some residents are reported to be well cared for. At the same time, multiple reviews clearly state that the facility does not provide on-site personal-care assistance for higher needs — families were told that 24-hour aides must be contracted and paid for separately. This distinction between independent living and assisted care appears to be an important and sometimes misunderstood aspect of the facility's offering, and it has led to complaints from families who expected more hands-on resident assistance without extra fees.
Staff impressions are also mixed but tilt positive in day-to-day interactions: many reviews call staff friendly, pleasant, helpful, and commend specific roles (receptionists, a dentist, kitchen staff). Amenities such as a hair salon, podiatrist visits, a gym, computers, and activity rooms receive favorable mentions. Conversely, there are repeated, specific complaints about rude or disrespectful behavior by certain staff or servers, and a few reviews allege harassment and discriminatory behavior by management toward residents — including a war veteran. These allegations contribute substantially to negative sentiment and should be considered separately from routine staff performance reports.
Facilities and accommodations draw both praise and criticism. Positive comments highlight a beautiful campus, gated walkways, waterfront or water-view rooms, cherry wood furniture, and the option to bring personal furnishings. However, reviewers frequently note the building is older and outdated in places and that some rooms are small (though others describe rooms as spacious). The physical condition appears uneven: well-maintained common areas and grounds are often praised, while the interior finishes and updates may lag behind newer competitors.
Dining and activities are another area of divergence. A number of reviewers enjoy restaurant-style dining and report very good meals; others call meals merely fair and note crowded dining times. Activities range from lively (bingo, arts and crafts, trips, parties, board games) to limited, with several accounts stating entertainment was removed, trips discontinued, or activities reduced. These contrasting reports suggest that programming and dining quality may fluctuate over time or differ by unit/population, so current program schedules and sample meals should be verified in person.
The most serious and recurrent negative themes involve management, policies, and alleged misconduct. Multiple reviews accuse the facility of dishonest sales pitches, harassment over compliance issues, and, most alarmingly, the eviction or forced relocation of elderly residents and veterans. Several reviews link these actions to controversial housing decisions and claim residents were displaced in favor of other occupants; some reviewers framed this in terms of immigration-related housing choices. There are also allegations about executive financial impropriety and leadership avoiding scrutiny. These are grave accusations reported by reviewers and have provoked intense emotional responses, calls for investigation, and demands for closure among some commenters. Because these claims are repeated across reviews, they represent a substantial reputational and practical concern that prospective residents must explore with documentation, current policy review, and direct questions to management.
Patterns to note: many day-to-day operational aspects (cleanliness, friendly staff, good activities and meals) receive consistent praise from a large subset of reviewers. Simultaneously, a smaller but vociferous group reports extreme negative experiences centered on management ethics, evictions, and discriminatory treatment. The coexistence of these narratives suggests that experiences at Island Shores can vary widely — by time period, by unit, or by individual circumstances — and that institutional policy and leadership actions have been a flashpoint.
Recommendations for prospective residents and families: confirm the level of care included in rent and what requires extra payment (especially 24-hour care), request current activity calendars and sample menus, tour multiple room types to assess condition and size, and directly ask about any recent incidents, eviction policies, occupancy rules, and leadership/staff changes. Also check public records and recent inspections for any regulatory actions or complaints. Given the mix of positive daily-service reports and severe management-related allegations, thorough, documented due diligence is strongly advised before making a decision.
