Overall sentiment: Reviews for Sunrise at Spanish Terrace are highly polarized. Many reviewers highlight strong positives—chiefly affordability, large apartment size, a preserved sense of independence, daily check-ins, and meal support—while a substantial number of other reviewers raise serious and recurring concerns about management, financial practices, maintenance, and suitability for residents with medical needs. The result is a split picture: for some residents the community is a safe, clean, affordable home with caring staff; for others the facility is mismanaged, misleading, and risky, particularly for those requiring professional medical care.
Care quality and resident support: Several reviews emphasize regular staff contact (daily check-ins) and daily meals or assistance with feeding, which reviewers value as preserving independence without converting the property into assisted living. Some residents or long-term occupants say the owner and managers care about residents and that the place feels like a blessing at an affordable price. Conversely, other reviewers explicitly warn that Sunrise at Spanish Terrace is not suited to people who need medical supervision or recovery support (for example after a stroke). Multiple accounts claim residents were unable to get adequate care and were later removed or kicked out for being unable to meet their medical needs. This dichotomy indicates the facility operates as an independent living property with limited clinical capability and that expectations about care must be clarified before moving in.
Staff and management behavior: Management and ownership are the central source of complaints. A large cluster of reviews accuses management of dishonesty, unresponsiveness, broken promises, and shady business practices. Specific allegations include failing to return security deposits, delayed refunds, and misleading advertising or photos that do not match the current condition of units. Some reviewers name an owner (Matt Baker) and assert consistent problems tied to that management. On the other hand, a number of reviews praise the managers as great and caring. There are also suggestions of uneven performance over time—several reviewers say a change in ownership or property managers led to improvements, while others still report major unresolved issues. The pattern suggests inconsistent management quality and that experiences may depend strongly on timing and which staff are present.
Facilities, maintenance, and safety: Facilities reviews are mixed. Positive comments include very clean, large apartments with attractive interiors for some units; however, many negative reports point to slow or poor maintenance (slow repairs, a maintenance worker doing a poor job, neglected furnace filters, and furnace closet lockout). More serious safety and privacy concerns are raised: unauthorized entries into apartments, privacy violations, and alarm-locked doors that make accessing rooms or receiving packages difficult. Multiple reviewers describe severe cleanliness problems in some units (carpets saturated with dog urine and a persistent smell) while others say their units were cleaner at move-out than move-in. These divergent reports point to inconsistent housekeeping standards and variable unit conditions across the building.
Dining, activities, and community: Reviews that mention meals and check-ins speak positively about daily meals and the social aspects—residents report a sense of community and regular contact from staff. Some accounts mention daily cleaning and feeding assistance, which contributes to the perception of good value for money among residents who prioritize affordability and minimal support while remaining independent. There is little detail about organized activities beyond these daily services; the dominant themes in this area are routine supports rather than robust programming or clinical services.
Financial and legal issues: A recurring and serious concern is the retention or non-return of security deposits. Several reviewers state deposits were never refunded, prompting at least one reviewer to pursue resolution through small claims court and to note a low court filing cost (around $50) and that they handled the case themselves without a lawyer using internet research. These reports raise red flags about contract enforcement and deposit handling. Prospective residents should carefully review lease and deposit agreements, document move-in and move-out conditions, and be prepared to pursue small claims if necessary.
Patterns and credibility: The reviews show a strong polarization: many glowing, appreciative accounts (affordable, caring staff, clean and beautiful interiors) coexist with forceful negative accusations (scumbag landlord, unreturned deposits, dishonest business practices). Some reviewers explicitly call positive reviews suspicious (multiple posted the same day), suggesting possible coordinated reputational management. There are also indications of change over time—several reviewers mention ownership changes and that new managers addressed prior issues—so experiences may vary depending on the era of residency. Overall, the most consistent positive themes are affordability, apartment size, and daily check-ins/meals; the most consistent negative themes are management dishonesty, deposit disputes, privacy violations, and inadequate handling of medical needs.
Bottom line guidance: Sunrise at Spanish Terrace may be a good fit for independent seniors who prioritize low cost, larger apartments, and minimal daily support (regular check-ins and meals) and who do not require assisted living or medical recovery services. However, the property carries significant risk flags: alleged deposit retention, inconsistent maintenance and cleanliness, unauthorized entry/privacy concerns, and reports of eviction or poor handling of medical needs. Prospective residents should perform thorough due diligence: inspect the exact unit, verify current management and recent resident feedback, get lease and deposit terms in writing, document move-in condition with photos, and confirm emergency/medical procedures and access policies before signing. If financial protections or medical needs are a priority, these reviews suggest extra caution is warranted.
