Overall sentiment across the provided reviews is mixed but leans positive about staff, activities, and living spaces, while containing a few serious negative outliers that warrant attention. Multiple reviewers emphasize warm, friendly and courteous staff and nurses, and several comments note that residents appear happy. The facility is often described as elderly-focused, with plenty of activities, large apartments, and up-to-date, well-kept lodgings. Grounds and facilities receive consistent praise — reviewers mention beautiful/amazing grounds and modern amenities. Family involvement is noted as encouraged, and at least one reviewer specifically said a family member (grandmother) was happy there.
Care quality and staff: The dominant theme is that staff and nursing personnel are friendly and provide courteous care. Several reviews explicitly call the staff “awesome,” cite friendly nurses, and characterize care as attentive. These comments suggest staff-resident interactions and day-to-day caregiving are strengths of the community for many families and residents.
Facilities, rooms, and activities: Multiple reviewers highlight large apartments, nice rooms, and up-to-date facilities. The property’s grounds get positive mention, and activity programming is described as plentiful. These consistent positives indicate the physical environment and enrichment opportunities are selling points for the community.
Cleanliness and pest issues — conflicting reports: Cleanliness is a notable area of inconsistency. Several reviews call the facility “very clean,” “well-kept,” and “super clean,” while other reviews report significant problems: a urine odor at the entry and an assertion that the facility is “infested with bugs” and needs extermination. This conflict suggests uneven performance or variable experiences: some visitors/residents perceive excellent housekeeping, while at least one or more reviewers encountered sanitation or pest-control failures. Because these two narratives cannot both be universally true, they point to potential variability over time, by building/wing, or differences in perception/expectations.
Dining and resident welfare: There is at least one report claiming a patient was hungry and that a resident wanted to leave, which indicates an isolated but important incident involving resident nourishment or oversight. While most reviews that mention resident happiness contradict this, the complaint about hunger and desire to leave is a concrete negative datapoint regarding daily care and should be treated seriously when assessing overall performance.
Management and safety concerns: Beyond operational issues, one reviewer explicitly suggested reporting problems to authorities, which is a serious red flag though it appears to come from a single source. Another reviewer expressed concern about the owner, Becky Gunter. These points do not provide details about specific misconduct but indicate at least some mistrust or dissatisfaction with leadership from certain consumers. Combined with the pest/odor/alleged hunger reports, these comments form a pattern of isolated but potentially serious complaints that differ from the majority of positive feedback.
Patterns and closing assessment: In summary, the reviews portray a facility that many families find welcoming, well-staffed, activity-rich, and physically appealing. However, there are isolated but significant negative reports concerning sanitation (urine odor, alleged bug infestation), a nutrition/attention lapse (patient hungry), and management concerns (owner called out, suggestion to involve authorities). The coexistence of strong positive praise and serious complaints suggests variability in experience — overall performance appears good for many residents but with occasional lapses that have prompted strong reactions from others. Any evaluation or decision should weigh the generally favorable comments about staff, activities, apartments, and grounds against the potential for inconsistent cleanliness, pest control, and at least one reported failure in basic resident care and governance. These inconsistent elements merit follow-up and verification (e.g., recent inspection records, pest-control logs, dining/meal supervision policies, and management responses to complaints) before drawing firm conclusions.
