Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly mixed, with a pronounced split between high praise for frontline staff and significant concerns about management, cleanliness, staffing levels, and safety. Many reviewers emphasize that caregivers and activity staff are warm, compassionate, and go above and beyond — several employees and leaders are named specifically (Christa Kealey, Becky, Jackie, Shirley) and receive recurring praise for hands-on attention, hospice coordination, and communication with families. At the same time, a notable portion of reviews report systemic operational problems that materially affect resident safety, comfort, and trust.
Care quality: Multiple reviewers describe excellent day-to-day caregiving, attentive updates to families, successful hospice coordination, and smooth transitions for new residents. Staff are repeatedly characterized as polite, caring, patient, and engaged; activity directors and entertainers receive positive mentions and residents are described as socially active and pleased with programming. However, there are also serious, directly contradictory accounts: understaffing, missed or delayed emergency responses, multiple falls (including a fall that resulted in a broken wrist), residents being left alone, and reports that nurse-on-call coverage was unavailable. Memory care quality receives mixed feedback — some say it’s good for Alzheimer’s care, while others report inadequate memory-care oversight.
Staff and management: The reviews reveal two distinct narratives. On the positive side, families frequently praise specific staff members and local administrators for being responsive and supportive, and some reviews note successful management transitions. On the negative side, several reviews allege that a change in ownership/management (buyout by Cedarhurst) coincided with less responsive leadership, a greater focus on profit, poor staff retention, and understaffing. Reviewers report difficulty reaching higher-level executives and getting promised discounts honored. There are also serious allegations related to billing and finances, including unauthorized access to funds, unethical overcharging, and even legal action by families in some cases. This creates a pattern of strong frontline staff masked by inconsistent, and in some reports troubling, higher-level operational practices.
Facilities and cleanliness: The community’s physical setting repeatedly receives high marks — lakefront views, well-kept grounds, spacious and attractively decorated apartments, and dedicated activity spaces (craft rooms, library, movie areas). Many reviewers say the building looks beautiful and provides a welcoming, homey atmosphere. Contradictorily, multiple reviews describe cleanliness and upkeep problems: unclean toilets (including reports of feces), black or dirty bathrooms, infrequent room cleaning, a nonworking elevator, and buckled carpeting that could create tripping hazards. Some describe the exterior as attractive while the interior or specific units are in poor condition. Planned renovations are mentioned but at least one reviewer said promises were not kept.
Dining and activities: The community appears to offer a range of activities, live entertainment, and social opportunities that many residents enjoy. Several reviewers praised the menus and said meals were appreciated. Conversely, some reviews raised concerns about dining logistics (meals coming from the memory care building), limited activities, or staff shortages reducing the frequency or quality of programming. Overall, activities are a clear strength when staffing and management support them, but they can suffer when the facility is understaffed.
Safety, regulatory, and financial concerns: Beyond cleanliness and staffing, the reviews contain more serious red flags for prospective residents and families to investigate. Reported failures of emergency response, repeated falls, broken or nonfunctioning infrastructure (elevators), allegations of unauthorized access to resident funds, and disputes escalating to legal action are among the most significant concerns. Several reviewers asked for greater clinical coverage (requests for a 24/7 RN) and noted that reliance on overworked staff increases risk.
Patterns and recommendations implied by the reviews: The dominant pattern is of exemplary frontline employees working in a desirable physical setting, occasionally undermined by operational failures tied to staffing, leadership changes, or financial practices. Where leadership and staffing are strong, families report excellent experiences — smooth moves, attentive caregiving, meaningful activities, and hospice support. Where leadership is perceived as unresponsive or profit-driven, cleanliness, safety, communication, and billing become problem areas. The reviews suggest that any prospective resident or family should: (1) ask directly about current staffing ratios, RN coverage, and staff retention statistics; (2) tour multiple apartments and public spaces to inspect cleanliness and maintenance; (3) request written confirmation of any promised discounts or financial arrangements and clarify billing practices and safeguards for resident funds; (4) ask how the community handles emergency response and fall prevention; and (5) speak with families of current residents about recent management changes and responsiveness to concerns.
In summary, Charter Senior Living of Hasmer Lake appears to offer a beautiful setting and many compassionate, dedicated staff who provide meaningful care and activities for residents. However, significant and recurring concerns about cleanliness, staffing levels, safety incidents, management responsiveness after ownership changes, and financial/billing practices warrant careful, specific inquiry before making a placement decision. Prospective residents should weigh the strong positive reports about individual caregivers and the environment against the serious operational and safety issues raised by multiple families, and should verify current conditions and leadership practices in person.
