San Juan Commons

Cons

• They claim public housing is poorly managed, with private housing being far better, and that this building represents the worst of the public options.
• They describe having lived in three public apartments, each worse than the last, and call this place the worst of the worst.
• They say the new district manager was initially wonderful but has since removed assigned parking, forcing some disabled residents to park far away due to a shortage of spaces.
• They allege that Black residents are continuously denied access, and they call for legal action to stop unlawful practices.
• They assert there are no protections against abuse by the manager and that residents must endure mistreatment.
• They claim the manager seeks out residents and makes their lives miserable.
• They state they would not recommend this building and believe there are better-managed apartments in town.
• They recount the previous manager as unkind and widely disliked, with documented anger-management issues.
• They report maintenance neglect (mold growth, slow plumbing, and electrical repairs taking up to two years) and poor overall upkeep.
• They describe the current management as lacking interpersonal skills and behaving like a bully who targets disabled residents.

Review

From the collection of impressions, one recurring thread stands out: this public housing experience is deeply uneven, marked by a long list of management failures, maintenance delays, and a sense that residents - especially the most vulnerable - are not treated with fairness or respect. The sentiment is clear across multiple entries: compared with private housing, public housing here has serious problems with leadership, consistency, and responsiveness. The author repeatedly contrasts their experience with what they perceive as better management elsewhere, and the result is a palpable disappointment that colors every aspect of living in these buildings.

A central grievance centers on leadership and policy changes that have felt sudden and punitive. A new property manager (referred to as the DM) was described as wonderful at first, only to reveal a different stance as time passed. The most notable shift is the elimination of assigned parking, a change that disproportionately affects disabled residents who now have to park far away because there aren't enough spaces. The sense conveyed is that decisions were made without adequate consideration for those with mobility challenges, and there's a strong implication that the change was introduced without meaningful consultation or compromise. The appeal to legal counsel - "someone with a lawyer in their family needs to come here" - underscores how serious the writer views these policy changes and their impact on daily life.

Racial discrimination allegations are another deeply disturbing thread. One review explicitly claims that black residents are "continuously denied," and there is an urgent call to sue to halt what is described as unlawful practice. This accusation intensifies the sense that the waiting list and the allocation of resources are not administered in a racially neutral way, even though the material does not provide independent proof or details. The tone here is accusatory and urgent: the reviewer feels there is a pattern of denial that targets a specific group, and they argue that legal action is necessary to stop it. The combination of policy change, discriminatory accusations, and the call for a lawsuit contributes to a broader atmosphere of distrust and fear about how residents are treated.

The issue of protection and abuse adds a troubling layer to the narrative. The reviewer asserts that there are no general protections against abusive behavior by management for everyday residents, contrasting it with protections for vulnerable adults through APS (Adult Protective Services) who focus on specific categories. The claim is explicit: the manager actively seeks out residents and works to make their lives miserable. The rhetorical question "What can you do?" signals a sense of helplessness and isolation in facing what is described as persistent harassment. This thread paints management as a pattern of intimidation rather than service, leaving residents to cope with daily stress and fear without clear recourse.

Amid the criticisms, the reviews also show sharp fluctuations in perception and experience. Several passages convey strong dissatisfaction, including praise for "the most efficient, friendly apartment complex I have ever encountered" - a remark that stands in stark contrast to the majority of negative feedback. Such contradictory statements suggest a complex, perhaps inconsistent environment where experiences vary widely by time, building, or personal interactions with staff. The mixed reviews hint at possible turnover, changes in management company or ownership, and evolving tenant relations, but they also reinforce the sense that problems are not uniformly addressed or resolved.

Maintenance and living conditions emerge as another major concern. The buildings are described as not well built, with very thin walls and neglected exteriors. Maintenance is said to be inconsistent and sometimes dependent on who you are or who you know, with references to "special people," implying favoritism tied to church affiliation or other intrusive social ties. Mold growth, delayed plumbing repairs, and electrical issues are listed as chronic problems, including a claim that even when issues are acknowledged, resolution can take years. Even the elevator - presented as ADA-accessible - does not guarantee timely attention for disabled residents, as the waiting list is described as "the shortest," which the writer uses to argue that management targets disabled residents for particular treatment, further fueling anger and distrust toward leadership.

The social climate inside the buildings is portrayed as tense and rumor-prone. The author notes that those who keep to themselves are still subjected to gossip, and there's a sense that a "new sheriff" and "new deputy" have arrived, implying a climate of policing and enforcement rather than service. Previous managers are described as unpopular or difficult, sometimes tied to personal struggles such as anger management, while the fear of reprisal or harassment from current leadership leads residents to hope for change without certainty. The overall impression is one of a community under stress, where interpersonal conflict, management style, and policy changes interact to create a hostile atmosphere for many residents.

Taken together, these accounts present a troubling portrait of public housing in this area: frequent management turnover and personality clashes, policies that appear to disadvantage certain groups (notably the disabled and Black residents), and a maintenance culture that feels opaque and unequal. The few positive notes - such as occasional praise for what is described as efficient management elsewhere or at other times - stand out precisely because they are so sporadic within the larger narrative. The pattern is not just about isolated mistakes but about a systemic sense that residents must navigate a framework where fairness, accountability, and timely assistance are inconsistent at best and intolerable at worst.

In the end, the tone across these experiences is a mix of frustration, alarm, and cautious hope. Residents describe living with daily frustrations - parking, maintenance delays, and a climate of intimidation - while urging attention to potential legal remedies and calls for more equitable treatment. The narrative reads as a warning to prospective tenants and a plea to authorities or owners to reassess how management interacts with residents, how resources are allocated, and how to restore a sense of safety and dignity in a place that is meant to be a home. The stories underscore a pressing need for transparent policy-making, independent oversight, and a renewed commitment to treating all residents with fairness and respect.

Places of Worship

• Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (0.5 miles)
• Grace Lutheran Church (0.6 miles)
• St Mary's Catholic Church (7.6 miles)
• Gardiner Country Chapel (10.2 miles)
• Camano Chapel (12.1 miles)

Restaurants

• Wright Away Delivery (0.7 miles)
• Finistere (0.9 miles)
• Fountain Cafe (1.1 miles)
• Pourhouse (1.1 miles)
• The Bayview (1.1 miles)
• Owl Sprit Cafe (1.1 miles)
• Quench Waterfront Kitchen & Bar (1.1 miles)

Physicians

• Rienstra Clinic (0.8 miles)
• Olympic Peninsula Implants (0.9 miles)
• Pacific Eyecare (1.1 miles)
• Richard Rudd Lynn (1.1 miles)
• Alicia McCubbins (1.1 miles)
• Olympic Primary Care (1.3 miles)
• Vanvig Sandra Mn-Fnp (1.3 miles)

Parks

• Chetkemoka Park (1 miles)
• Jackson Tidal Park (1.2 miles)
• Pope Marine Park (1.2 miles)
• Fort Townsend State Park (3.6 miles)
• Fort Flagler State Park (4.3 miles)
• Fort Casey State Park (5.1 miles)
• Ebey's Prairie Trail (6.4 miles)

Pharmacies

• Jefferson Family Pharmacy (1.1 miles)
• Don's Pharmacy (1.1 miles)
• Hi-School Pharmacy (1.1 miles)
• Linds Pharmacy (7.4 miles)
• Sav-On Pharmacy (12.4 miles)
• Walmart Pharmacy (12.5 miles)
• Walgreens (12.6 miles)

Cafes

• Alchemy Bistro and Wine Bar (1.1 miles)
• Better Living Through Coffee (1.1 miles)
• Courtyard Cafe (1.2 miles)
• Sunrise Coffee Company (1.2 miles)
• Blue Moose Cafe (1.2 miles)
• Velocity (1.3 miles)
• Mean Bean Coffee (1.6 miles)

Hospitals

• Jefferson General Hospital (1.4 miles)
• Jefferson Healthcare (1.4 miles)
• WhidbeyHealth Medical Center (7.5 miles)
• Whidbey General Hospital (7.5 miles)
• Island Facial Aesthetics (7.6 miles)
• Joseph D Keyes DDS (13.2 miles)

Transportation

• U-Haul Moving & Storage (4.1 miles)
• Jefferson County International Airport (4.9 miles)
• Coupeville Nolf (8.3 miles)
• AJ Eisenberg Airport (9.8 miles)

Theaters

• Blue Fox Drive-In & Brattland Go-Karts (10.4 miles)