Garfield Apartments

Pros

• The reviewer described the apartments as decent.

Cons

• The laundry room never works, residents are made to fix things themselves, and the landlord shows little concern.
• The owner is stingy and will not spend money on upgrades unless it is absolutely necessary.
• The apartments are not maintained well.
• A lot of the tenants are described as sub-par because they accept Idaho Housing Vouchers, and the units are not maintained or upgraded.
• Many tenants smoke, making it not a good place to raise kids.
• The reviewer was falsely accused of smoking, bullied to vacate, and unlawfully served notice, with an extension denied during COVID-19 quarantine.
• The reviewer lost their dog and incurred over $3,000 in costs, felt discriminated against, and warned others to beware of neighborhood rentals.

Review

The place described by several residents feels like a long-standing frustration expressed in many small, cumulative ways. One person recalls a laundry room that never works, a situation that leaves residents doing the upkeep themselves while the landlord simply collects the rent and does the bare minimum. When problems arise, the refrain is the same: requests for fixes are met with resentment or excuses, and every new complaint risks the question, "What did you break now?" The impression left by this account is of a building where basic amenities are unreliable, and maintenance is treated as an inconvenience rather than a responsibility. The atmosphere is further strained by the regular presence of police, a sign, as the reviewer suggests, that the environment is unstable and perhaps unsafe. And through it all, the landlord's apparent indifference compounds the sense that tenants are not cared for as paying customers but instead as problems to be managed rather than residents whose well-being matters.

Another voice in the conversation adds a sharper edge: the landlord is described as stingy, unwilling to allocate funds for upgrades or even routine maintenance unless it's absolutely necessary. This stewarded neglect translates into a building that "is not maintained very well," with the implication that upkeep is sporadic, reactive, and driven by minimal compliance rather than any sustained plan to improve living conditions. The commentator further contends that the issue is amplified by the mix of tenants, particularly those who participate in Idaho Housing Vouchers. The claim is that this combination of voucher holders and sparse investment leads to a cycle of cursory maintenance and cosmetic fixes that never address underlying problems. In this view, the property becomes a place where smoking is common among residents, a factor that the reviewer believes makes it even less suitable for families and children, painting a picture of a neighborhood rental that is tolerated more out of necessity than chosen for quality of life.

Interwoven with the critique of management and maintenance is a compact, almost paradoxical descriptor: "ghetto but decent." It's a sentiment that captures the tension between perception and reality. On one hand, there's recognition that the location has a rough edge - conditions that feel run-down, with ongoing challenges that affect daily life. On the other hand, there's an admission that not everything is entirely negative; there's perhaps a sense of community among those who stay, or at least a few redeeming features that keep some residents anchored. The phrase hints at a complicated dynamic: a property that is at once disagreeable in some practical ways and tolerable enough in others, depending on one's expectations, resources, and tolerance for risk.

The most distressing portion of the collection of experiences centers on a deeply personal and traumatic chapter: a single father who claims to have been falsely accused of smoking inside the unit. According to this account, the family faced bullying and pressure to vacate, accompanied by an unlawful notice served without proper justification. The fallout was severe: the father and his son allegedly contracted COVID-19 as a consequence of the false accusation, and their request for an extension on quarantine time was denied as inhumanely as it was ungrounded in health concerns. The son, described as an honor student, faced an upheaval that threatened his education and safety, culminating in the loss of their dog and more than $3,000 in associated costs. The family maintains that they never smoked and that the treatment they received was discriminatory, framed, in part, by a broader pattern where single mothers and vulnerable tenants were not granted the same "second chances" as others. The narrative carries a sense of injustice, one that casts the management and the broader rental environment in a sharply negative light.

The overarching tone across these accounts is not merely dissatisfaction with nuisance problems but a suspicion that residents in this neighborhood rental are treated as disposable. The combination of reluctant maintenance, a landlord unwilling to invest, and the alleged use of aggressive or unfair eviction tactics paints a picture of a hostile environment for families, especially those reliant on housing vouchers or facing other vulnerabilities. The reviewer who mentions all the single moms receiving "many chances" offers a perspective that feels accusatory and emotionally charged, suggesting a systemic bias against certain groups within the tenancy. The final exhortation - "beware of neighborhood rentals" - reads as both warning and plea: a caution that what seems affordable or convenient on paper may conceal a pattern of neglect, intimidation, and discrimination in practice.

Taken together, these reflections sketch a portrait of a rental property and management approach that leaves residents frustrated, stressed, and financially strained. The repeated themes - unreliable facilities, minimal maintenance, a landlord who appears unwilling to invest, and troubling disputes that escalate to legal or health crises - coalesce into a narrative of hardship for families trying to make a home in a place that should feel secure and supportive. The accounts also illuminate a broader concern about how some rental environments manage vulnerability and how the interplay of poverty, housing policy, and enforcement can impact the everyday life of tenants. For anyone considering this property, the stories serve as a stark reminder to weigh the visible conveniences against the hidden costs of living there, and to seek out as much information as possible about maintenance history, management responsiveness, and the experiences of current residents.

Places of Worship

• Southern Baptist Convention (0.3 miles)
• Shiloh Foursquare Church (0.5 miles)
• New Geneva Orthodox (1 miles)
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise (1.1 miles)
• Idaho Falls Temple (1.3 miles)

Pharmacies

• Mike's Pharmacy (0.5 miles)
• Walgreens (0.8 miles)
• Hy-Way Drug Store (0.9 miles)
• Walgreens (1.3 miles)
• Albertsons Pharmacy (1.4 miles)
• Sav-On Pharmacy (1.4 miles)
• Walmart Pharmacy (1.9 miles)

Hospitals

• Robison Distributing (0.6 miles)
• Grand Teton Service Group (1.7 miles)
• Mountain View Hospital (2.3 miles)
• Idaho Falls Community Hospital (2.4 miles)

Restaurants

• Pockets (0.7 miles)
• Burger King (0.7 miles)
• Taco Shop (0.8 miles)
• Freddy's Frozen Custard (0.8 miles)
• Frosty Gator (1.2 miles)
• Sukuru Basu Ramen (1.2 miles)
• Manwaring Cheese and Gelato (1.3 miles)

Cafes

• Dutch Bros Coffee (0.9 miles)
• Starbucks (1.3 miles)
• Dutch Bros Coffee (1.3 miles)
• Starbucks (1.8 miles)

Physicians

• A-B-See Vision Care (0.9 miles)
• Denny Craig J MD - Counseling Clinics of Yfrs (0.9 miles)
• Life Spring Women's Clinic PA (0.9 miles)
• Parkway Eyecare (0.9 miles)
• Imaging Center (0.9 miles)
• Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center (0.9 miles)
• Affleck Eye Care (1.1 miles)

Parks

• Sportsmen's Park (1.6 miles)
• Community Park (1.9 miles)
• Shamrock Park (2.1 miles)

Theaters

• Paramount Theatre (1.8 miles)