Farimont Plaza Apartments in Independence, MO

Pros

• They have stayed here for eight years and love it.
• Lashawn is described as very professional and informative.
• The resident hopes to have many years here.
• The Fairmont Community Center provides weekly transportation for seniors to grocery shop, which is a welcomed service.
• The staff are very nice to residents' grandparents.
• It is a nice independent living complex for seniors aged 62 and older.
• Rodney, the maintenance supervisor, keeps the place clean and in good shape.
• The place is wonderful.

Cons

• The reviewer claims Lashawn is a bully.
• The reviewer says she is underqualified and cannot do her job.
• The reviewer states numerous resident vehicles have been stolen and nothing has been done because she cannot operate the cameras.
• The reviewer alleges she harasses residents who stand up to her.
• The reviewer accuses her of taking photos of residents and their company on her personal phone despite security cameras.
• The reviewer claims she has tried to fight at least two residents who are elderly and sick.
• The reviewer states HUD and Delmar have done nothing about it.
• The reviewer warns that elderly family members should not look into this location.
• The reviewer says Rodney is nice but lets Lashawn control him and walks all over him.
• The reviewer claims she witnessed Lashawn try to attack a resident and then lied to the police about it.
• The reviewer alleges camera footage is deleted when she is in the wrong.
• The reviewer describes Lashawn as trashy and uneducated.

Review

Farimont Plaza is best suited for independent seniors 62 and older who want affordable, low-maintenance housing with straightforward amenities and a built-in sense of community. It works well for residents who value predictable rent, uncomplicated floor plans, and access to practical services rather than luxury finishes or resort-style programming. The setting can be ideal for families seeking a stable, long-term home for a parent who mostly needs companionship, light support, and transportation to errands. It is not pitched as a high-security or high-touch care environment, and that distinction matters when evaluating fit.

Those who may want to consider alternatives are seniors who require consistent, professionally managed on-site staff with clear safety procedures and robust accountability. The accounts from residents suggest management inconsistencies and strains in the leadership, including claims of bullying, camera mishandling, and unequal treatment. For residents with mobility challenges, cognitive concerns, or a history of safety incidents, a community with stronger oversight, explicit policies, and verifiable security measures would likely be a wiser long-term choice.

On the plus side, the practical value is real. The community center coordinates transportation for grocery trips, a critical service for residents who no longer drive. Maintenance is described as responsive, with a named supervisor who keeps common areas clean and functional. Several residents report kindness among staff and neighbors, and there is a palpable sense of familiarity in a 62-plus, low-income demographic that often translates into a supportive neighborly network. That social fabric and the convenience of affordable housing create meaningful daily stability for many who want to stay near family and familiar surroundings.

Yet the major downsides loom large and cannot be dismissed. The most persistent concerns center on on-site management. Reports describe a single manager who allegedly oversteps boundaries, undermines social work staff, and even engages in confrontations with elderly residents. Allegations include the use of personal devices to photograph residents, questionable handling of camera footage, and attempts at intimidation. Vehicle theft has been mentioned, and claims persist that footage and evidence are not handled transparently. Such dynamics create fear and mistrust, undermining the safety and predictability that independent seniors rely on. The sense that authorities were slow to intervene compounds these concerns and erodes confidence in long-term residency.

For families evaluating this option, several practical steps are essential. Request up-to-date information about the on-site management structure and reporting protocols; insist on a transparent incident log and verifiable security measures; visit at different times to observe how staff interact with residents; speak with multiple current residents about daily life; confirm the reliability of transportation schedules; and review lease terms, income requirements, and any ongoing service options. If peace of mind around safety and consistent management is non-negotiable, it is prudent to compare nearby independent options with documented resident satisfaction and independent oversight before committing.

In the end, Farimont Plaza serves as a workable choice for budget-conscious seniors who prize independence, a basic amenity set, and a small, familiar community, provided there is comfort with variable management quality and potential safety concerns. The practical benefits, transportation, visible maintenance attention, and a neighborly atmosphere, do deliver daily value, but they do not fully offset the reported management issues and security questions. For families and residents who demand steadier, more professionally run oversight and verifiable safety practices, exploring alternatives is strongly advised. If budget remains the decisive factor and a resilient, self-reliant resident is the expected profile, Farimont Plaza can be a viable short- to mid-term option, with proactive advocacy and careful monitoring required to sustain satisfaction over time.