Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but leans negative, driven largely by management, policy, and pest/safety concerns. Multiple reviewers cite serious problems such as roaches and rats, perceived safety risks including car theft, and what they describe as misrepresentation of the community's advertised '55+' status. At the same time, recurring positive points include a strong sense of neighborliness and pockets of cleanliness and safety reported by some residents, along with mention of a new administration that some say is improving management.
Facilities and physical environment: The reviews present conflicting impressions. Several specific complaints point to pest problems (roaches and rats), which are serious red flags for building maintenance and resident health. Conversely, other reviewers state the park is "very clean." This contradiction suggests uneven maintenance across the property or differences in individual lots. The presence of children and a school bus in close proximity was repeatedly noted and factors into the perception that the community does not operate as a true 55+ park, which may concern prospective older adults seeking an adult-only environment.
Safety and location: Safety is a recurring theme but is reported in both positive and negative terms. Some residents say they "feel safe" and that neighbors look after each other, indicating a supportive community network. However, other reviewers specifically call out safety issues including a risk of car theft, which is a significant concern that would merit verification and attention from management and prospective residents. The proximity of children and school bus traffic was also mentioned as a nuisance or as evidence that the community's age-restriction claims are not strictly enforced.
Management and administration: Management is the most consistent negative theme. Several reviewers accuse the facility of misrepresenting its 55+ policy by allowing younger residents, and they describe a manager with a "nasty" or unwelcoming attitude. There are reports of broken promises, rent increases without associated improvements, and an unhelpful HOA. Together, these items paint a picture of inconsistent or poor communication, inadequate responsiveness to resident concerns, and financial changes perceived as unfair by residents. A counterpoint is that a new administration has been mentioned positively by some reviewers, with claims that management is improving; however, that view appears less widespread than the criticisms.
Social life, rules, and family policies: Several reviews point to restrictive visitation policies that limit family involvement, specifically mentioning exclusion of grandparents and policies that foster isolation and reduced social interaction. These complaints indicate that the community's rules or their enforcement may undermine family connections and resident well-being. At the same time, neighbor-to-neighbor support is highlighted as a strength, suggesting informal social networks exist even if formal activities or visitation policies are problematic.
Costs and value: Rent is described as starting around $600, which a few reviewers see as affordable. However, that perceived affordability is offset by reports of rent increases implemented without improvements to the property or services, lowering perceived value. The combination of rising costs, alleged misrepresentation of community rules, and maintenance/pest issues contributes to the overall negative value proposition for some residents.
Patterns and notable concerns: The dominant negative patterns are management-related (misrepresentation of policies, poor customer service, broken promises, HOA unhelpfulness), pest problems, and safety issues. The dominant positive patterns are strong resident-to-resident support, affordability for some, and at least some signs of cleaner areas and improved management under new leadership. The coexistence of both strong neighbor support and management/policy failures suggests that resident quality of life depends heavily on personal networks rather than reliable institutional support.
Conclusion and considerations: Prospective residents should weigh the affordability and the potential for a caring neighbor network against consistent reports of pests, safety concerns, policy misrepresentation, restrictive family visitation rules, and problematic management. Given the split reports on cleanliness and improving management, anyone considering this community should verify current pest-control measures, confirm the 55+ policy and visitation rules in writing, ask about recent or planned maintenance and security measures, and speak directly with current residents about how the new administration is performing. The reviews indicate both reasons for caution and some bright spots, but the most frequent and serious complaints center on health, safety, and management practices.
