Charles Seivers Tower

Pros

• The staff are described as friendly, caring, and helpful by residents.
• Maintenance is responsive, with issues often repaired the same day.
• The building is very well kept, clean, and comfortable.
• It is regarded as a good place for elderly and disabled residents, including those on fixed incomes.
• Security features, such as card-key access, contribute to a safe environment.
• Management, especially Betty and Jennifer, are praised for their caring and supportive approach.
• Service coordinators, like Teresa, are noted as helpful and loving.
• The facility offers regular community activities and meals, enhancing resident life.
• Residents appreciate the on-site staff for being approachable and supportive.

Cons

• The property is infested with bed bugs and roaches, and maintenance neglects addressing the issue.
• Staff are described as unhelpful, making it hard to get help at Clinton Towers.
• The halls are seldom cleaned anymore and there is no quarantine policy for pest issues.
• Garbage doesn't come here.
• It was a terrible place to live.
• Management is described as very poor.
• There is fear among residents due to drugs and crime, with elderly and disabled people not feeling safe.

Review

The set of comments paints a complex and conflicted picture of these HUD-subsidized apartment communities that cater to elderly and disabled residents. On one hand, a number of residents speak warmly about the people who work there - the managers, service coordinators, and maintenance crews - describing them as caring, helpful, and genuinely invested in residents' well-being. On the other hand, there are pointed, specific complaints about pest infestations, cleanliness, safety concerns, and perceived neglect that color many everyday experiences. Taken together, the notes reveal a place with real strengths in community and staff engagement, but with chronic, deeply felt problems that can undermine quality of life for the people who call these buildings home.

Pest and cleanliness issues emerge as a dominant theme in several reviews. A few residents report active bed bug and roach infestations, coupled with what they describe as neglectful handling of the problem by management. One person notes bed bugs and roaches and implies a broader pattern of not addressing the issue promptly, which translates into a feeling that residents are asked to tolerate conditions that should be remedied by building maintenance and pest control. Another reviewer recalls a decline in hall cleanliness over time, contrasting it with earlier standards where halls were cleaned more regularly. There are even practical concerns raised about how infestations are handled relative to other housing policies, with suggestions that there should be clear quarantine or remediation steps when pests are present. A call for a deep cleaning, fresh paint, and even a mural reflects a desire for a more inviting and sanitary environment beyond just fixing the pests.

In parallel with cleanliness and pests, the reviews reveal a bifurcated experience of management and staff. Several residents praise specific staff members for their kindness and responsiveness. They mention Betty, Jennifer, and Teresa as compassionate, attentive, and essential to the residents' sense of security and well-being. Maintenance personnel like Robert and Micah are also singled out as hardworking and capable, able to address problems efficiently and with a sense of humor. This cluster of praise suggests that when staff are proactive and personable, residents feel supported and more likely to view the facility as a home rather than just a place to reside. Yet there are other voices that indicate frustration with getting help or timely responses from staff, which underscores a persistent gap between the ideal of attentive service and the lived reality for some tenants.

Security and safety receive mixed treatment as well. Several comments praise secure entry systems and the general peace of mind that comes with a card-key access and a front entrance presence. The positive notes suggest that many residents feel safer with better controlled access and a sense of order in common areas. Conversely, there are more alarming remarks about safety, including concerns about drugs, loitering, and the potential for danger in or around the buildings. One reviewer describes fears for elderly residents due to activity linked to drugs and other unsafe behavior, signaling a sense of vulnerability that cannot be dismissed. The juxtaposition of secure entries and ongoing safety worries mirrors the broader tension in these properties between a caring, close-knit resident community and external or internal challenges that threaten that safety.

Community life and daily routines also show a spectrum of experiences. For some residents, the housing complex functions as a supportive community where neighbors look out for one another, and where staff facilitate social opportunities. Positive remarks include mentions of meals offered several days a week, social events, and programs designed to help residents feel connected. There's a sense of home for people who are on fixed incomes and who appreciate the affordability and the "family-like" atmosphere created by staff and fellow residents. In contrast, others describe buildings that feel less welcoming due to cleanliness issues, pests, or safety concerns, which can dampen the sense of community and make everyday activities - like walking through the halls or enjoying public spaces - less enjoyable or even frightening for some.

Specific locations receive individual attention in the comments, illustrating how experiences can vary by site. For instance, Clinton Towers is described by some as a place where staff can be difficult to reach, presenting a barrier to timely assistance. In contrast, other remarks about Clinton Towers highlight the presence of supportive routines and personal connections within the building. Charles G. Seivers Towers is singled out with a strong safety warning from one reviewer about drug activity and unsafe conditions, underscoring the reality that one location may feel far riskier than another. A resident's simple note about visiting a mother-in-law or dropping off a niece hints at the mixed feelings residents may have - rooted in familiarity and affection yet tempered by ongoing concerns about the environment.

Ultimately, the collection of reviews underscores a fundamental truth about these housing options: they can be a lifeline, providing affordable housing, important social programs, and a sense of community for elderly and disabled residents. In the best moments, residents feel seen, supported, and cared for by staff who go above and beyond, turning the building into a real home with reliable maintenance, friendly neighbors, and accessible services. In the more challenging moments, concerns about pests, cleanliness, safety, and inconsistent responsiveness remind us that even well-intentioned programs and people must continuously strive to meet residents' basic needs and create environments that are not only affordable but also safe, healthy, and welcoming.

For anyone considering these communities, the comments offer two clear takeaways. First, the human element matters deeply: many residents speak gratefully of specific staff members and maintenance personnel who bring warmth, competence, and efficiency to their daily lives. Their stories suggest that investing in staff training, accountability, and consistent follow-through could significantly improve overall satisfaction. Second, there is a persistent call for stronger attention to pests, housekeeping, and safety measures - elements that directly impact health and dignity. Addressing those issues holistically - through proactive pest management, regular deep cleaning, transparent safety policies, and responsive on-site support - could transform these properties from being merely affordable to being genuinely livable, with residents feeling respected, secure, and valued as members of a caring community.

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (0 miles)
• Dh Compounding (0.8 miles)
• Apple Discount Drugs (1.2 miles)
• Clinton Drug Store (1.6 miles)
• Mac's Pharmacy (4.5 miles)
• Mac's LTC Solutions (4.5 miles)
• Walgreens (4.8 miles)

Restaurants

• Hardee's (0.6 miles)
• Git'N Go Market (0.6 miles)
• China Inn (1.5 miles)
• Subway (4.4 miles)
• Arby's (5 miles)
• Firehouse Subs (5 miles)
• Bojangles' Famous Chicken 'n Biscuits (5.1 miles)

Hospitals

• Clinton Dialysis Clinic (0.7 miles)
• North Knoxville Medical Center (8.2 miles)

Physicians

• Summit Medical Group of Clinton (1.5 miles)
• Summit Medical Group of Clinton (4.8 miles)
• Tommy Daugherty MD (6 miles)
• Norris Academy (7.2 miles)
• Dr. Jeff Grabenstein, MD, FAAFP (7.6 miles)
• Parkway Sleep Disorder Center (7.7 miles)
• Southeast Retina Associate - Nicholas G Anderson MD (7.9 miles)

Transportation

• U-Haul (4.1 miles)
• U-Haul (8.8 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (4.9 miles)
• Starbucks (9.1 miles)
• Panera Bread (9.2 miles)
• Hey Bear Cafe (11.2 miles)
• Nick & J's Cafe (11.4 miles)

Parks

• Milt Dickens Park (5.9 miles)
• Anderson County Park (8.7 miles)
• Victor Ashe Park (11.1 miles)

Places of Worship

• Glenwood Baptist Church (6.3 miles)
• Covenant Life Worship Center Norris Campus (6.9 miles)
• Fairview Free Will Baptist Church (7.2 miles)
• Powell United Methodist Child Care Center (7.8 miles)
• Temple Baptist Church (8.1 miles)
• Grace Baptist Church (8.3 miles)
• Sharon Baptist Church (8.3 miles)