Unlike other states, California property tax rates don’t increase with market value.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
If it’s based on square feet and some sort of local average square foot price from the last 12 months then fine.
If it’s based on individual assessors deciding your blossoming cherry grove and a charming mid-century atmosphere likely to appeal to young professional couples then… I’d rather the tax be based of the actual price for which the house last changed hands.
If you bought your house for $50k in 1979, of course you want it to be based on the original price. In CA, the assessed value can only go up by 2% a year. But if I buy your house today for $1.2m, then I am going to be paying $1,000/month in property taxes. And if you want to move across town, or even downsize a little to that $800k condo, well, then you are going to lose that low low property tax rate.
Which is one of the reason there is a housing shortage. People don't want to upgrade or downgrade or otherwise sell. They just figure out ways to give it to their children or rent it out and keep the low tax rate locked in.
If property taxes were higher you wouldn't have to pay $1 million for the home because nobody can afford those property taxes and subsequently nobody would actually bid $1 million.
Meanwhile if you make property taxes negative then you could afford the same house for $2 million.
Edit: How can property taxes be negative? The government can use income taxes to build infrastructure to raise the value of your land.