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?
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.
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!)
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.
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.