5 Tremont St, Rutland, VT 05701
To contact a resident: (802) 775-2926
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Rutland Housing Authority
Pros
They were treated well by Rutland Housing and had no problems with them.- The staff is great, and the maintenance guys are respectful.
- The staff are good people.
- Sheldon Towers is great to them.
- They describe the units as very nice.
- They are consistently greeted with kindness and pleasantness when they contact the management.
- They consider it a great place to live.
Cons
One reviewer describes the property as just crappy.- They say they were denied housing due to a 35-year-old criminal history, despite being a paraplegic.
- They claim Sheldon Towers has turned into a crack house with shady residents and nearby break-ins.
- They accuse management of using personal agendas instead of professional service.
- They allege that staff, including Heather and Shelly Spooner, confuse paperwork and deny housing for stupid reasons.
- They say the housing process requires reapplying multiple times because staff fail to do their jobs.
Review
Rutland Housing Authority’s Sheldon Towers in Rutland, VT is best suited for residents who value affordability and practical, on-site support over modern amenities. The community tends to reward those who want predictable maintenance response and friendly, accessible staff, with functional apartments that cover daily needs without prestige or flair. It reads most clearly as a practical option for seniors or disabled adults on fixed incomes who prioritize stability, routine, and the help that on-site teams can provide, rather than a campus of newer finishes or upscale security features.
That said, prospects should explicitly consider alternatives if security, consistent intake processes, and up-to-date facilities are non-negotiables. A pattern in the resident feedback points to uneven safety conditions around the property and mixed perceptions of neighborhood risk. One review highlights a move-into aftertaste of crime and drug activity near the Sheldon Towers area, while another recounts a history of bureaucratic friction that could hinder timely housing placement or reapplication. For families or individuals who demand transparent eligibility, rigorous security, and a sense of assured procedural fairness, seeking other options may prevent ongoing frustration.
The strongest positives center on people and responsiveness. The staffing comes through as approachable, respectful, and capable in day-to-day interactions, with maintenance personnel described as dependable and courteous. Several residents have emphasized that staff members are consistently good to them, and that the maintenance team is reliable enough to address issues promptly. In environments where routine service and a sense of personal regard from the on-site team matter, these elements can translate into meaningful quality-of-life improvements, especially for residents who rely on regular upkeep or need quick help with everyday fixes.
Yet the negatives are not easily outweighed by those positives. The most consequential concerns relate to safety and administration. The property has been accused by at least one reviewer of deteriorating into a drug-tinged environment, accompanied by break-ins and a perception of lower overall security. Add in repeated reports of paperwork mishaps, eligibility denials, and appeals that require reapplication, and the prospect of long, uncertain wait times becomes a real risk. When safety and administrative clarity are uncertain, even dependable maintenance and friendly staff can feel insufficient to preserve peace of mind or long-term stability.
In weighing the pros against the cons, the on-site care and maintenance reliability do offset some daily stressors for residents who prize reliable service and straightforward, unpretentious living. Those advantages are meaningful, especially for people who need quick access to help and who value a respectful, communicative staff. However, the security concerns, neighborhood dynamics, and inconsistent administrative processes significantly temper the appeal. The result is a decision that favors practicality for a narrow cohort: older adults or people with limited means who can tolerate potential safety volatility and the risk of paperwork clogging up housing progress.
The practical conclusion is clear. For individuals who prize cost-effective housing with steady, supportive staff and can accept the possibility of neighborhood safety concerns and administrative rough edges, Rutland Housing Authority offers a workable home. For anyone who cannot live with uncertain safety, persistent bureaucratic hurdles, or the prospect of frequent reapplications, alternatives deserve serious consideration. Prospective residents should visit, ask pointed questions about recent security measures and intake timelines, and compare with other local options to ensure the chosen path aligns with long-term safety, stability, and the level of administrative reliability required.
Assisted Living
Activities on-site
Devotional services off-site
Indoor common areas
Ambulatory care
Diabetic care
Meals provided
A Detailed Exploration of Assisted Living Medicaid Waivers Across the United States
Comprehensive Residential Support and Assisted Living Solutions for Individuals with Disabilities
Comprehensive Supportive Living Arrangements for Adults with Disabilities