I just noticed a local sit which is about a half hour drive away from where I live and I’ve done a couple of sits in this area. The title is headed “out of town sitters need only apply”. Nowhere in the body of the listing does it explain as to why these homeowners are looking for an out of town sitter vs a local sitter. They do state that they travel often and would like to develop a relationship with the sitters so that their dogs will become comfortable with the sitters. I don’t quite understand how this is going to happen using out of town sitters. I know there’s been many posts on here as to why some sitters apply on local sits. I personally like doing local sits just to get a change of scenery in my own city and have developed some great friendships with local homeowners and their pets and have done repeat sits for them. I’ve seen some comments from homeowners wondering why sitters choose local sits. I think there may be a fear from homeowners that the sitters won’t really spend any time at the sit and return home. This has never been the case for me regardless of the length of the city so this listing is a bit baffling and would love to know the reason it was posted as such. I’m sure other members will provide feedback on this rationale.
Maybe it’s a typo and they meant to title it:
Out of Town Sitters Need Not Apply
Some hosts don’t want local sitters, because they assume they’re homeless and potentially more likely to squat and refuse to leave.
That’s possible! I was tempted to apply and ask them but it’s not in an area that I’d like to return to a sit.
I’m curious - have you ever heard of such experiences on this site? Something that’s never entered my mind.
I haven’t. I don’t think that matters to some hosts, who are worried for whatever reasons. In some countries, cities or states, that’s apparently more risky than in others.
There could be a number of reasons. One thing that comes to mind for me is perhaps they had issues with local sitters that they think would be less likely to happen with someone who isn’t.
Maybe a past sitter was employed locally and was working very long hours; maybe they had lots of friends over without getting permission. Or like you mentioned, maybe they are concerned they will spend most of their time at their own home.
And like someone else mentioned, there may be concerned about applicants with precarious housing situations,; and while I don’t think many would outright worry about them becoming squatters, having someone like that in their home may make them uncomfortable for a number of reasons. And it is possible this is something they could have experienced in the past as well.
Personally, I do this for an exchange with other travelers and I am less interested in folks just avoiding paying rent in the city in which they actually live. I felt the same way about couchsurfing. It’s not that I think the sitter won’t leave, it’s just not why I participate in THS.
I think this particular host either made a typo, as PNW says, or they had a particularly bad experience with one or more local sitters and just don’t want a repeat.
OTOH, depending on how large an area it is, a 30 minute drive away may feel not-local enough. I can see why someone would want some time in a nearby city or different neighborhood. I think it all depends on how you frame the application, if it’s a sit you are particularly keen on.
It’s not a sit I’m keen on as I’ve done a previous sit in the area but I was just curious as to why they weren’t interested in local sitters - thanks for your feedback.
Wow ! That potential never occurred to me. Really ? Can you cite examples ? Not to be rude but this seems very, very far-fetched.
You can search for “squatters” or such terms if you want to see previous references on the forum. And it doesn’t matter whether you or I agree with them or not. Since it’s their home and their pets, they’d have to decide whom they feel comfortable trusting. Not my call nor yours.
This is actually becoming alarmingly common and there have been several issues with sites like Airbnb where renters have rented for a month and then just refuse to leave. Because many places consider you a legal tenant after a month, getting them out involves a massive legal nightmare and expense. It can take months or even years and during that time the HO can’t be in their home. There are also many cases of people breaking into empty houses and doing the same. It’s even becoming more common for people to start legal paperwork to transfer ownership during this time.
A lot depends on local laws, but the chances of it happening are not zero and it’s a big enough risk and headache to fix that I can see why people could be concerned, depending on their location. The housing situation is dire in many places and people are getting desperate.
@Globetrotter
I may be naive but maybe they just want non locals in case a local sitter gossips about the HO home to other locals perhaps?
There is no point in speculating.
If a sit appeals apply and say why you think you are a good fit.
What is the worst that can happen? They either ignore the message or say no. In either case move on.
I’m with @PNW , surely it’s a typo and they’ve missed the NOT word out.
Or maybe the neighbourhood has a dodgy reputation.
I thought so too. Many reasons for a local sit. I have a very nice owned home myself, to be honest. I could absolutely apply locally. For a nice pet, for «change of walls», for peace for a work-task, to leave my own home to kids home from uni etc.
It’s a very upscale expensive homes location
I’m not interested in the sit as I’ve done two previous ones there - just curious as to the reasoning of the title.
I also agree! I can’t imagine anyone as a member on this site being a squatter. Surely if that was the case and happened, THS would have to become involved.
Some hosts may be nervous about giving their house keys to a stranger who is local.