Did you know that many hotels ban guests with local addresses from staying with them, and will even cancel confirmed reservations? This policy is more common than many people realize, and is currently getting some attention on social media, after a guest had his reservation canceled.
In this post:
Hampton Inn hotel bans locals living within 50 miles
A Bluesky user shared a frustrating experience online, while redeeming Hilton Honors points for a stay at the Hampton Inn in Asheville, North Carolina. As he explained, the hotel canceled his family’s reservation because the address on his Hilton Honors account (incorrectly) showed an old address within 50 miles of the hotel.
When he asked why his reservation was canceled, he was told it’s “because of our homeless population,” and the employee added that most hotels in the area have similar policies.
A Hampton Inn in Asheville just canceled my family’s reservation because our address (incorrectly) showed Asheville—and the hotel bars locals within 50 miles. When I asked why, they said, “because of our homeless population,” adding that most hotels here have similar policies.This is outrageous.
— Brian Goldstone (@brian-goldstone.bsky.social) December 28, 2025 at 4:21 PM
There’s even a sign in the lobby confirming that this policy exists:
This hotel reserves the right to refuse occupancy to those who reside within 50 miles. Exceptions are as follows: natural disaster, inclement weather, or power outage which creates hazardous conditions. Any exceptions must receive management evaluation for approval.
Since some people have questioned whether this really happened—or whether such a policy actually exists—here’s an auto-generated transcript (with errors) from the voicemail canceling our reservation, and a sign posted next to the front desk when we arrived.
— Brian Goldstone (@brian-goldstone.bsky.social) December 28, 2025 at 9:29 PM
[image or embed]
He points out that what’s most chilling about the exchange was “the sheer casualness of ‘because of our homeless population,’ as if those experiencing homelessness were *obviously* people to be kept out.”
What was most chilling about this exchange was the sheer casualness of “because of our homeless population,” as if those experiencing homelessness were *obviously* people to be kept out.
— Brian Goldstone (@brian-goldstone.bsky.social) December 28, 2025 at 4:58 PM
He also points out how “if you’re a family evicted from your apartment, or a mother fleeing domestic violence with her children, or someone unhoused trying to get off the street or out of their car for a night,” you’re not welcome at many hotels.
So if you’re a family evicted from your apartment, or a mother fleeing domestic violence with her children, or someone unhoused trying to get off the street or out of their car for a night… you’re not allowed to stay at these Asheville hotels.Just unabashed discrimination.
— Brian Goldstone (@brian-goldstone.bsky.social) December 28, 2025 at 4:31 PM
Interestingly, the person sharing this experience is also the author of a book named “There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America.”
This hotel policy is pretty common, but is it reasonable?
This story is far from the first time I’ve heard of a hotel banning local guests. I’d say it’s even fairly common at limited service properties in (relatively) smaller cities and suburban areas.
Of course there’s a certain irony to this for the miles & points community, since many of us are known to do mattress runs, whereby we check into hotels to get elite nights, and that often happens locally.
On the surface, it seems super unethical and illogical to have a policy like this, if you ask me. There are all kinds of reasonable situations where someone would need somewhere to stay, that doesn’t include natural disasters, inclement weather, or power outages. Like, on the most basic and “innocent” level, what if you were just having a disagreement with your spouse, and want a little bit of space for a night (which says nothing of much more serious situations where a room may be needed)?
What is the concern, exactly? It’s interesting how this policy was specifically blamed on the “homeless population,” because I could see just as many concerns about high schoolers having a party and trashing a room, locals booking a hotel to have an affair, etc. If an otherwise unhoused person is willing to pay the hotel’s rate, what, specifically, is the problem?
The policy definitely rubs me the wrong way, and I can understand the outrage. I’m just curious what the other side of this is, and what the specific concern is that causes so many hotels to have such a rule in place.
Bottom line
A Hampton Inn in Asheville, North Carolina, canceled a guest’s reservation, because the address on file for his Hilton Honors account was “local.” The hotel has a policy of banning guests with addresses that are within 50 miles, with limited exceptions. The employee at the hotel reportedly blamed this on the “homeless population.”
As you’d expect, this policy isn’t well received by many people. However, it’s more common than you might assume.
What do you make of this hotel policy banning locals?
What happens if you don't have electricity or no heat due winter storm, will they give some exemptions.
This is 100% true. I lost everything in a house fire and not a single hotel would let me pay for a room in Haywood county or in Asheville!
Most hotels take a security deposit when you check in. In certain city locations (Chicago comes to mind) I've had hotels require a $200 a night deposit. Of course, it goes back to your card when you check out without room damage.
Most homeless could not afford the room charge and security deposit so this doesn't make sense.
Nothing about this policy makes any sense at all.
I live in a small MN city of ~25k and am on our local tourism board, so I have some insight into this. We have a handful of hotels, and many have the same no locals policy. The issue for us isn't homelessness, it's that locals sadly destroy the hotel. They rent a room so they can throw parties & use the pool but do so in an obnoxious and destructive manner. I've seen the...
I live in a small MN city of ~25k and am on our local tourism board, so I have some insight into this. We have a handful of hotels, and many have the same no locals policy. The issue for us isn't homelessness, it's that locals sadly destroy the hotel. They rent a room so they can throw parties & use the pool but do so in an obnoxious and destructive manner. I've seen the photos of some of the damage that has been done. It's really sad, but that's the reason many times.
I have never encountered such a policy. I recently moved locally and wanted to spend a few nights in an uncluttered space without all the chaos of living between two places for close to a month. I stayed three nights at a local Hampton Inn. Zero questions or issues. And this was in Washington DC which has a large homeless population, and at an off-season rate of $110/night, ie, accessibly priced.
Maybe DC prohibits...
I have never encountered such a policy. I recently moved locally and wanted to spend a few nights in an uncluttered space without all the chaos of living between two places for close to a month. I stayed three nights at a local Hampton Inn. Zero questions or issues. And this was in Washington DC which has a large homeless population, and at an off-season rate of $110/night, ie, accessibly priced.
Maybe DC prohibits this type of practice (wouldn't be surprised), but I wonder if this is a franchisee policy that Hilton has simply chosen not to challenge. I also wonder if other data points come into play, eg, Hilton status/stay history. I bet that it isn't that difficult to figure out what profile a local falls into, like if you're using a special rate code for a wedding or event, or have stayed a multiple Hilton properties that a not local. Not saying that's cool/moral/justifiable, just wondering if YMMV if you fit the demographic of a regular OMAAT reader.
*that are not local.
Wish we could edit our comments!
This isn’t the only injustice done to homeless. I found out the hard way that if you are homeless and your car insurance finds out they will drop you. So living in your car won’t last long because if you get pulled over and have no insurance they can tow your car. That’s unfair. Just because someone is homeless they can’t have insurance? That’s such BS.
I recently visited Quincy, Illinois and stayed at the Holiday Inn. They have a sign at the front desk saying they don't accept guests from within 100 miles of the hotel. 100 miles is basically St. Louis and even the capital of Illinois, Springfield. Of course, this is NOT disclosed on the IHG website.
They clearly deserve Corporate Social Responsibility awards for their contributions to drink driving, domestic violence etc within the local community!
I’m sure it was just sheer coincidence that someone writing a book on homelessness ran into this issue. Totally random coincidence.
Speaking as someone who has been a hotel manager for many years, though not at hotels with this policy. I get it. Although 90% of local guests are not a problem - 90% of your problem guests are locals. Parties, drugs, smoking in rooms, fights. Almost any time you read a shift report from the night before of a guest who got evicted for whatever reason and check their address, it's a local. Our brand...
Speaking as someone who has been a hotel manager for many years, though not at hotels with this policy. I get it. Although 90% of local guests are not a problem - 90% of your problem guests are locals. Parties, drugs, smoking in rooms, fights. Almost any time you read a shift report from the night before of a guest who got evicted for whatever reason and check their address, it's a local. Our brand used to even have it codified in the employee travel program that you couldn't use it at a hotel within 40 miles of where you worked to try to prevent employees from doing the stupid stuff. For many hotels it's just easier to not allow locals without prior management approval. It will upset a few legitimate guests but will eliminate so many other problems.
Would it also be true that: 99% of your male guests are not a problem, but 99% of your problem guests are male?
No, that would not be true.
This is the dumbest thing I've read this week! I've booked hotels close to home for many reasons:
1) Need an extra night or two for status that year. Why should I have to spend time and money going away for that?
2) Staying at the airport when I have a flight so early that it's impossible to get there in time by train.
3) Staying in town when I'm at a...
This is the dumbest thing I've read this week! I've booked hotels close to home for many reasons:
1) Need an extra night or two for status that year. Why should I have to spend time and money going away for that?
2) Staying at the airport when I have a flight so early that it's impossible to get there in time by train.
3) Staying in town when I'm at a late event and getting home would cost as much as a hotel night.
4) Staying in town with friends so as to be near events when there's a festival on, rather than have to waste time commuting in and out every day.
I'd never even considered the possibility of such a stupid rule. Americans never cease to amaze me.
Oh, how quickly they forget. During the hotel’s most turbulent time, they were practically on their knees begging us locals to book a 'Staycation.' We supported their business even when there was really little to no need, just to keep their lights on.
But now that they’re full again? Suddenly, my local zip code makes me a 'homeless' risk. Now they can just anyhow flag us names and cancel confirmed bookings? WTF? It was fine...
Oh, how quickly they forget. During the hotel’s most turbulent time, they were practically on their knees begging us locals to book a 'Staycation.' We supported their business even when there was really little to no need, just to keep their lights on.
But now that they’re full again? Suddenly, my local zip code makes me a 'homeless' risk. Now they can just anyhow flag us names and cancel confirmed bookings? WTF? It was fine to take my local money when you were desperate, but now I’m a problem? Screw themselves. Next time the economy tanks, don't come crying to the neighbors.
Live ten miles from downtown, but sometimes want to stay downtown for an evening out at the theatre.
I totally support the ban, anywhere. Its not a shelter. We have plenty of those and Asheville has more than adequate assistance available for people in need. Don't twist the narrative. It's a private business and they have a right to refuse service.
What are you on about? A local person paying for the stay does not make the place a “shelter”? Your statement is illogical inbever manner, just like this ban
I wonder whether Hilton have a program for detecting "undesirable guests" on future bookings which uses certain key words such as "homeless" and so flagged up Brian Goldstone (his book on the topic is on Obama's top 10 of 2025!)
No. No they do not.
Well gee, Asheville is a popular spot for Appalachian through hikers to rest. Many are unhoused from the expense of the hike and yet, I'll bet this Hampton inn gladly takes their reservations. Awful they discriminate against their own community.
On top of everything else, 50 miles is bonkers. In my area, that would cover hotels in two nearby resort areas. Up in DC, that would cover Baltimore and (possibly) Fredericksburg. Down in South Florida, much of that conurbation. And so on.
I'm a bit surprised that chains don't have some policy against this - you've got the DNR lists and so on that you can use, but at some point money is money.
This story has me absolutely infuriated – this is the most terrible thing I have ever heard of, having traveled to over 100 countries and stayed at thousands of hotels across all 6 inhabited continents. How dare this second-rate hotel chain pull such an outrageous stunt, canceling a loyal Hilton Honors member's points redemption just because his old address was within 50 miles? And then having the spineless employee blame it on "our homeless population"...
This story has me absolutely infuriated – this is the most terrible thing I have ever heard of, having traveled to over 100 countries and stayed at thousands of hotels across all 6 inhabited continents. How dare this second-rate hotel chain pull such an outrageous stunt, canceling a loyal Hilton Honors member's points redemption just because his old address was within 50 miles? And then having the spineless employee blame it on "our homeless population" like it's some chilling eugenics policy?
Hilton owes this guest – and every affected traveler – a full formal apology. Public, executive-level, and with real compensation, not some inconsequential points toss. Anything less is unacceptable.
Boycotting Hilton for life. Who's joining me in ditching this trash brand for real hospitality chains?
The article isn't clear, but suggests this may be not restricted to Hilton.
More a function of the geographic region (American "South", non-urban)
And probably of the hotel owner/operator rather than Hilton.
It's not unknown for operators to run hotels in more than one brand group within an area.
I don't think anyone is with you on anything, crazy Kathy.
Mini MaxPower, who is being exposed as a “dummy” every time he writes a comment, just stated to the degenerates attacking Tim Dunn that he would have done nothing different than American, the WORST AIRLINE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. OMAAT commenters don't want to list to the story, the smart people on the site wish they never asked him the question that led to that terrible answer, but the Internet is going WILD.
Their wording doesn't even cover neighbour upstairs flooding one's apartment, staying next to work because car is in for repair, etc
So true, Albert! I am so ANGRY right now!
In the UK, some level of government sometimes pays to put asylum seekers / homeless in hotels.
Is this policy to prevent any public body, charity or similar, doing so at these hotels?
And they are then trying to avoid charges of discrimination by applying it to everyone?
By definition, homeless people do not have an address, so they are targeting the address of the government entity/charity?
Any hotel with such a policy is run by demonic morons!!
I want to give you my money and you dare to turn me away!? 50 miles??? That can be as far as 3 hours away??? What absolutely stupidity! Guess I will be avoiding Hilton hotels going forward!!! This is fucking corruption!
I expect that the people who came up with this idea have never lived in a city, never take public transport, nor walk more than 500ft, so for them 50 miles is only ever 1 hour's drive.
How about attending an evening event at a hotel involving alcohol?
They don't want the related room bookings?
Sounds like they would lose the event bookings too?
(Perhaps this is more a European view, where drinking and then driving is less acceptable)
Pretty strange. Not doubting the report (it is well documented) but I have never come across anything like this before. We were going through some massive renovations last year, which meant I have stayed at a number of hotels in the area (one of them less than a 3 minutes walk from my registered address) with no issue whatsoever.
I was thinking renovations too.
Perhaps the vision of whoever set this policy is that one should have enough bathrooms/kitchens that when some are being renovated one always has spares?
But people with houses that large probably aren't staying at such properties.
For those who need a place to stay but afraid of this policy: Just use a different mailing address in a different city. It’s not like mails are really sent anymore these days.
The U.S. South is full of morons with asinine policy ideas.
And you're one of them, buster!
Never had a problem staying in a hotel locally, including literally across the street from my home. I believe it would be borderline illegal in my jurisdiction to refuse service based on this. Like Ben, I don't see a point in such rule. What does it matter where the person in question comes from if they're paying?
Also, I believe US doesn't have any ID showing residence address so can't you just update your Hilton profile to whatever address and stay anyway?
Given that passports are accepted as ID in hotels, and in most countries they don't show residence address, that's a global solution.
Perhaps put 7930 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA (Hilton's HQ).
Totally agree. It's discrimination, plain and simple.
My money is on the motivation for the policy being a puritan attempt to stop lovers' trysts or casual prostitution (organised prostition would not find the limitation a restriction).
The mention of homelessness in this case because of the book that this guest has written.
It's not the hotel task to solve homelessness issues. It's the task of the local government. Having homeless people in your hotel can potentially lead to issues and and overall decrease in quality and perception of the hotel.
I'm sure if you don't look homeless and have a valid reason to stay in the hotel, management will allow you to stay.
@ Michael -- "I'm sure if you don't look homeless and have a valid reason to stay in the hotel, management will allow you to stay."
As I understand it, the person who shared this experience is no longer unhoused, but was refused a reservation.
I don't get the impression that Brian Goldstone was ever homeless, except possibly as a "method-author" ?
Yes Albert is right, don’t think he ever mentions or says he was homeless. the title of the book is not alluding to him being homeless once, It is a catch all phrase of the plight of homeless people in America.