Can we hire based on whether the applicant rents or owns?

They're not yet at the scale of slums, favellas, barrios, etc., of third-world cities. For the most part that role remains the domain of "retirement" communities of the less-than-privileged sort, usually in outlying regions or depressed (e.g., Rustbelt, rural Sunbelt) areas.

California of the 1950s--1970s was reasonably inexpensive and low-drama relative to much of the rest of the US, while at the same time not being remote or encumbered with unattractive weather (too hot, too cold, too humid). Northern California was largely more affordable than Southern up until the early 1990s IIRC, when the draw-down from the Cold War crashed Los Angeles and San Diego real estate values. The San Francisco Bay Are rebuilt following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and saw the first dot-com boom in the late 1990s, with property values beginning their stratospheric climb.

Financialisation of real estate has contributed to price increases throughout the US, whilst supply has been constrained through numerous factors, benefitting both existing homeowners and financial institutions holding mortgage-backed securities.

Taxing real estate or securities based on it seems to be what's required. Unfortunately, that knowledge is 200 years old, but seems impossible to implement politically.

A region which could offer today in comparison to other current location choices the benefits that Northern California had to offer ~1950--1990 or so* just might be able to draw off talent.

Where that would be ... I don't know: Vancouver, Berlin, London, Dublin, Sydney, Melbourne, Madrid, ...? None of those jump out at me. Many are pleasant and modern, but most or all are expensive.