Overall sentiment across the reviews is predominantly negative, with a clear pattern of safety, management, and maintenance concerns. While a minority of comments note positive aspects — chiefly the facility's value as low-income housing and occasional mentions that the building is clean, quiet, or friendly — these are outweighed by repeated and specific complaints about security, staff behavior, and building upkeep.
Safety and security emerge as the most frequently cited issues. Multiple reviewers report an unsafe environment characterized by drug activity (explicit references to crack use), package theft, loitering outside windows, and general criminal behavior. Several comments assert there are no cameras or adequate security measures in place, and residents or their advocates feel management is not taking security seriously. Nighttime disturbances (loud yelling) and reports that police response has been ineffective further underscore a perception that resident safety is at risk. These concerns are particularly alarming because reviewers explicitly mention vulnerable elderly residents and express fear for their safety and dignity.
Staff and management are another major theme. Reviews consistently describe poor management, unresponsiveness to resident concerns, and unprofessional customer service. One front desk worker is named (Vonnie) and is described as dismissive, hostile, and unwilling to assist with basic issues such as intercom functionality. Several reviews describe a pattern of rude behavior and lack of empathy, with calls from reviewers for management to take corrective action. The sentiment is that staff behavior and managerial inaction contribute directly to residents' declining quality of life and to unresolved safety complaints.
Facility condition and maintenance problems are also prominent. Reviewers report frequent power outages, ignored maintenance requests, and general uncleanliness in parts of the building. Package theft and loitering indicate perimeter and common-area neglect. At least one reviewer indicates the health department has been contacted, suggesting conditions have reached a level of regulatory concern. Taken together, these reports suggest systemic maintenance and operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
Resident experience is mixed but skewed negative. Although a few reviewers praise aspects such as affordability and occasional friendliness or quiet, the dominant narrative describes an environment where residents — particularly elderly or otherwise vulnerable individuals — may feel unsafe, disrespected, and underserved. There is little to no information in the reviews about dining, scheduled activities, or clinical care services; these areas are not mentioned and therefore cannot be assessed from the available summaries.
Notable patterns and implications: the reviews repeatedly link management inaction and problematic staff behavior with worsening security and maintenance issues. The combination of reported drug activity, theft, ignored maintenance, and hostile front-desk interactions suggests systemic problems that likely require both operational fixes (security cameras, staffing changes, reliable utilities, a working intercom) and organizational changes (staff training, responsive property management, and formal follow-up on resident complaints). Several reviewers explicitly call for restaffing and for managers to address the problems, indicating an urgent perception of risk.
In summary, while Mt Vernon House is perceived by some as valuable low-income housing, the reviews collectively raise serious concerns about safety, staff professionalism, maintenance, and management responsiveness. These concerns are especially acute because they involve criminal activity and threats to elderly residents' dignity and security. Absent prompt, concrete actions to improve security, resolve maintenance issues, and reform front-desk and managerial behavior, the negative patterns described in the reviews are likely to persist and continue to undermine resident wellbeing.
