Letters: Outlawing rent-setting algorithms won’t end housing crisis

A letter from Mario H. Lopez of the Hispanic Leadership Fund argues that outlawing data-based rental pricing algorithms, as suggested in a recent op-ed, would not solve California's housing crisis and could instead discourage investment in new housing supply. Lopez cites San Francisco's 2024 ban on algorithmic rent pricing, which has been followed by a 22% year-over-year rent increase, the fastest in the nation.

Getting your Trinity Audio //trinityaudio.ai player ready... Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor. Outlawing algorithm won’t end housing crisis Re: “ California’s Legislature can lower rents with these bills https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/06/26/opinion-california-legislators-must-ban-landlord-price-fixing-software-and-shorten-construction-timelines/ ” Page A10, June 26 . The June 26th op-ed gets two things right: Californians, particularly working families, need more affordable housing; and additional housing supply is the solution. But ironically, the author also suggests outlawing data-based rental pricing tools. Such bans might hurt the investment Californians desperately need to increase housing supply. Property developers would be greatly disincentivized to build in areas where modern management tools are forbidden. San Francisco restricted the use https://www.sf.gov/information--sec-3710c-use-and-sale-algorithmic-devices-prohibited of algorithmic rent pricing in October 2024, and rents are climbing faster https://www.planetizen.com/news/2025/10/136131-san-francisco-rents-are-spiking-faster-anywhere-else-us-heres-why there than in any other city in the nation — 22% year-over-year, in fact. Tackling California’s affordable housing crisis will take a concerted effort to boost supply, not outlawing an algorithm based on false assumptions that it enables collusion and price-fixing. Mario H. Lopez Hispanic Leadership Fund Washington, D.C. Politicians are forsaking state’s environment As a doctor serving the Bay Area’s safety-net patients, I see firsthand the health consequences of both the housing crisis and climate change. Recent debates over the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA have put these urgent public health priorities in tension. My state Assemblywoman, Buffy Wicks, has long described herself as pro-housing and pro-environment. Last year she championed AB 130, which streamlined environmental review to accelerate housing development. But AB 130, and its companion SB 131 https://www.wildcalifornia.org/post/changes-to-ceqa-in-july-2025 , went too far. Exemptions for environmental protections were negotiated behind closed doors, including one for advanced manufacturing facilities with potentially devastating consequences for communities already burdened by pollution. This year, SB 954 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202520260SB954 restores many essential CEQA safeguards. Yet to date, Assemblywoman Wicks appears not to have supported it. She’s backed the Building an Affordable California Act https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/25-0023A1%20%28%26quot%3BEssential%20Projects%26quot%3B%29.pdf , a November ballot measure that could further weaken CEQA. California needs leaders willing to build more housing without sacrificing environmental protections. Katherine Brooks Berkeley MLB should let tech call balls and strikes I’m a 7th grader who plays baseball, and I’m tired of seeing bad calls decide the game. When I’m on the field, I try my best, and I know umpires have a really hard job. But they are human, and they make mistakes. Since MLB already has the technology to track exactly where the ball goes, why are we still letting humans call balls and strikes? The “challenge” system is okay, but it’s not enough. We should just use the computer for every single pitch. It’s way more accurate, and it would make the game more fair for everyone. Let’s stop arguing about bad calls and just use the technology we already have to get it right. Arjun Baviskar Dublin State must balance economy, environment Re: “ Poll points to strong Prop. 45 backing https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/07/15/measure-to-change-landmark-california-environmental-quality-act-has-big-lead-in-new-poll/ ” Page A1, July 16 . The article about polls showing Proposition 45 https://ballotpedia.org/California Proposition 45, Expedited Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative 2026 looking like a winner is sad. It is the ancient false dichotomy between the environment versus the economy. Proposition 45 would drastically weaken CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act — the state’s main general environmental protection law. They cite the affordability crisis as an excuse to lessen protection for the environment, but you can’t ensure affordability by harming our vital environment. A strong economy and a healthy environment go together. They depend on each other — and we need both. Proposition 45 is a loser. Vicky Hoover San Francisco Unreliable electricity makes gas necessary I completely support cleaner, safer and more environmentally friendly energy. Electricity is one source that also includes solar, hydro power and wind. Thus, encouraging all-electric homes, businesses and vehicles is the right step towards meeting our current and future best interests. However, the “elephant in the room” is PG&E and other electricity suppliers . PG&E is woefully and too frequently unreliable. On hot days, it is often unable to meet current demands. It is currently absurd to mandate the installation of electric-only appliances and heating/cooling systems or demand only electric vehicles on our roads. Until and unless PG&E can guarantee consistent and sufficient supplies of electricity, gas-powered appliances need to be available. I’ll happily switch to all electric once we have plentiful and steady supplies of electricity. Marcia Friss Saratoga