4532 N.76th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53218
To contact a resident: (414) 234-8584
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Pine View Living II Costs & Pricing
Pine View Living II offers competitive pricing for its private rooms, with a monthly cost of $2,800. This rate is significantly lower than the average costs in Milwaukee County, which stands at $4,513, and also below the state average of $4,339 in Wisconsin. Such affordability makes Pine View Living II an appealing option for individuals seeking quality care without the financial burden that often accompanies similar facilities in the region. The pricing structure reflects a commitment to providing accessible and high-quality living options for residents while maintaining a nurturing environment.
| Floor plans | Pine View Living II | Milwaukee County | Wisconsin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private | $2,800 | $4,513 | $4,339 |
Senior living communities with a similar price nearby
-
from +$300 / mo
Serenity Villa
$3,100 to $5,500 / month20.0 miles away -
About the same
Deerwood Crossing Senior Residence
$2,800 to $3,200 / month4.9 miles away -
from +$350 / mo
Home Share North Shore House
$3,150 / month5.9 miles away -
from +$290 / mo
Wellington Place at Hartford
$3,090 to $4,020 / month23.2 miles away -
About the same
Heavenly Home Inc
$2,800 to $3,000 / month2.7 miles away
Overall Review of Pine View Living II
Pros
The reviewer loves their mother.
Cons
The company is poorly managed.- The caregiver used the mother's debit card.
- A background check was never completed on the caregiver.
- The caregiver never comes to work.
- The caregiver lied about getting their job back at Pine View.
- Others receive money for caregiving, but this reviewer did not.
- They do not deserve any stars.
Review
Pine View Living II in Milwaukee is best suited for families that need a low-cost, light-touch living option and are prepared to supervise care closely on an ongoing basis. It may work for seniors with modest assistance needs who want a smaller, less institutional setting and who can tolerate staffing fluctuations as long as a family member can stay actively involved. This is not a setting aimed at residents with significant medical or cognitive needs, nor for those who require a consistently professional, fully accountable caregiving team delivered through a well-run organization.
For families who cannot tolerate organizational lapses or risk exposure, alternatives deserve serious consideration. If a loved one depends on stable staffing, verified background checks, and clear accountability, looking elsewhere is prudent. Those who need predictable schedules, direct oversight of who is providing care, and transparent handling of finances should seek facilities with stronger governance and documented safeguards. Even when cost matters, the potential costs of unreliable care and financial mishandling can easily outweigh any nominal savings.
There is a narrow thread of possible upside, the lone high rating hints that some residents may feel well cared for when staff show up and interact positively. However, that occasional positive experience fails to counterbalance the overarching pattern of mismanagement and inconsistency. In practical terms, any perceived benefits are fragile and contingent on circumstances that are not reliably sustained. When weighed against the real risks identified by multiple accounts, the positives become incidental at best.
The most salient cons fall into three buckets: governance and oversight, safeguarding and honesty, and staffing reliability. Reports describe a poorly managed operation with insufficient or ineffective controls. Financial safety concerns arise from allegations that a caregiver misused a family member’s debit card, paired with a background-check lapse that went unaddressed. Staffing instability compounds the problem, with claims that caregivers do not consistently show up, and that some communications were misleading or deceptive about employment status. Taken together, these factors undermine trust and create a risky care environment.
For families evaluating options, the road map is clear. Insist on current, accessible leadership and on-site oversight, not vague assurances. Require comprehensive, verifiable background checks for every caregiver, with copies kept on file and renewed regularly. Demand a concrete caregiver-assignment schedule, explicit policies on patient contact, and a transparent process for handling any financial transactions by staff, including receipts and limits. Visit the facility in person, observe interactions with residents, and speak with multiple staff members and residents about daily routines and problem-solving practices. Request detailed references from other families and verify them. A private, recorded trial period with defined performance metrics can reveal whether promises align with practice.
In the practical calculus, Pine View Living II should only be seriously considered if a family is prepared to provide close supervision, robust financial oversight, and frequent monitoring, essentially turning the arrangement into a co-managed, high-engagement solution. For most families seeking reliable, professional care with predictable staffing and accountable leadership, stronger, better-governed options in Milwaukee are advisable. The decision hinges on safety, reliability, and the capacity to maintain consistent, responsible care over time.
Board and Care Home
Activities off-site
Bath tubs
Devotional services off-site
Indoor common areas
Outdoor common areas
Private
Respite or short term stays offered
General Mitchell International (12 miles away)
Ambulatory care
Diabetic care
High acuity care
Incontinence care
Medication management
Meals provided
Essential Knowledge on Pneumonia in Older Adults
Exploring Palliative Care in the Home: A Comprehensive Overview
Comprehensive Insights into Palliative Home Care: What It Is and What to Expect