I was, and I remember it being specifically noted in local media shortly afterwars that while the same was not true of some parts of the Bay Area, SF did not see a decline in housing prices as a result of the bust, though it did see a temporary decline in the rate of increase.
So the stats might show a flatness in rental rates, but in reality there was a drop. And then as soon as the crisis is over, people want to move back and the rents start going up from that flat base rate after the incentives stop.
There was no “post-9/11 bust”. 9/11 happened toward the end of the 2001 recession (March-November 2001)
The post-9/11 expansion had particularly poor distributional characteristics, with, IIRC, the bottom 3 quintiles losing ground, the fourth quintile flat, and virtually all the gains in a narrow slice at the top (not just the top quintile, but the top 5% or so.)
In general, the Bay Area has great weather, sailing and skiing, international airports, and that's enough to bolster demand for the long run.
It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for access to tech jobs, immigrant community, good schools, safe, Fremont is your jam.
If you're looking for bougie restaurants, a music scene, people who want to work with you on a Burning Man project... well, you're not going to find that in Fremont.
If you were around SF in 1999-2001, you know how fast things can change. There was a mass exodus back to the east coast. Rentals that used to garner 40 applicants were vacant. Things were ugly until a few years later when the next boom hit.
Will this one be any different? Maybe. They built a lot of office space but SF is and will always be a highly desirable city. Santa Clara or Fremont? Not so much...