New York Times Tells Charlotte Story of ‘Hopes for Rental Gold Rush During the Democratic Convention’
There are several ways in which Charlotteans hope to make money off the Democratic National Convention. Many involve the pursuit of official DNC contracts leading up to the convention or the expectation of increased business when 35,000 or so visitors arrive the first week in September. And then there’s one method many locals hope to cash in on personally: renting their homes. In today’s edition of The New York Times, the newspaper tells the story of “In Charlotte, Hopes for Rental Gold Rush During the Democratic Convention.”
The writer, Kim Severson, Atlanta bureau chief for The New York Times, interviewed several people who offer varying perspectives, but with one thing in common: they want to rent their house or condo to DNC visitors in September and they expect to be paid well. One is Vani Hari, a thirty-something, banking consultant who owns a condo in uptown. Another is Donald Dunn, a much older gentleman with a house on Lake Norman. Hari and Dunn were photographed at their pads for the article, which also mentions that Hari “was recently named one of Charlotte’s hottest Democrats by a local newspaper.” That paper is Creative Loafing and it placed Hari on the cover last month.
While some of these Charlotte folks are asking for $750 to $1,500 a night to rent their homes during the convention, and one guy says he’s been offered $14,000 to rent his upscale, 34th floor uptown condo for the week, the article also warns that the well can quickly run dry. It points to examples of how “the bottom dropped out of the convention rental market” in Denver in 2008 and in Boston in 2004.
On the rental business side of things, the writer talked to the co-founder of DNCRental.com. That website appears to be the largest DNC-specific home rental site out there, at least in terms of its marketing and presence on social media. A few others I’ve come across are DNCRentalProperty.com, DNCdigs.com, DNChomes4rent.com, and DNC2012rbo.com. (I can’t speak to the credibility of any of these, however; just wanted to list a few options that weren’t in the NYT article.)
