Overall sentiment across the provided reviews is mixed-to-negative, with a handful of positive points around the small, home-like scale and occasional caring staff, but a predominance of serious operational and care concerns. The facility's small size (maximum five residents) and a generally positive community feel are cited as benefits; reviewers also note that the owner is responsive to inquiries. However, those positive aspects are frequently outweighed by repeated complaints about cleanliness, care quality, management, and value.
Care quality and staffing emerge as central concerns. Multiple reviewers report neglect of residents and describe caregivers as providing "minimum effort" or being "unfit." There are consistent comments about insufficient staffing levels and overworked employees, which reviewers link to low pay and high staff turnover. These staffing problems appear to contribute directly to inconsistent caregiving and perceptions of neglect. Although some reviewers say there are good staff members, the overall pattern is one of instability and inadequate staffing to meet resident needs.
Facility condition and amenities are also criticized. Reviewers specifically mention a dirty house with sticky floors and a bathroom not set up for showering, which raises questions about basic hygiene and suitability of the physical environment for residents. While the owner is said to be attentive to appearances, reviewers interpret this as prioritizing optics over substantive fixes to cleanliness and resident support. The small size that can be an advantage also means that deficiencies are more immediately felt and noticed by families.
Dining receives clear negative feedback: the food is described as "horrible." This is an important quality-of-life issue for residents and, combined with other operational shortcomings, affects overall satisfaction. There is little to no detailed mention of activities or enrichment programs in the summaries provided; the absence of positive comments about activities suggests they are not a distinguishing strength in the reviewers' experiences.
Management and organizational practices are portrayed negatively. Reviewers call management "terrible," "money-driven," and "unorganized." Some report that all questions must be routed through the owner, creating a single point of contact that can function as gatekeeping rather than enabling transparent communication. While the owner is responsive, reviewers still perceive a focus on appearances and limited follow-through on operational improvements. Several reviewers explicitly say they would not recommend the community and that it is overpriced relative to alternatives they toured.
In summary, although the community's small size and occasional caring staff are positives, the dominant themes are concerning: inadequate cleanliness, poor dining, under-staffing and overworked caregivers, high turnover tied to low pay, and management practices that prioritize appearance and control over consistent, resident-focused care. Prospective families should weigh the appeal of a small, home-like setting against the recurring reports of neglect, organizational dysfunction, and poor value. If considering this community, it would be prudent to verify current staffing levels, observe cleanliness and meal service in person, and ask for concrete examples of how management addresses turnover, hygiene, and resident bathing/showering accommodations.
