Now you see this everywhere out here, people with a few extra acres, on to which they store their used car collection, their bottles, cans, chemicals and pesticides, plastic tarps, tires, etc, etc, and this is largely regarded as a right of ownership. There are often community guidelines regarding the upkeep of property, but in rural areas they're seldom enforced.
This of course is bananas. Cars leak antifreeze, wiper fluid, oil, gas, transmission fluids, plastics break down, all these things saturate the soil and make the property poisonous to future generations. Examples of this are too numerous to list. While corporations are notorious for this approach to the environment, a short drive on the back-roads of Alberta or BC should be enough to inform you that a good many individuals are no better.
There is something inherently wrong with property as "Ownership". Property should be better regarded as "Stewardship", that you have an obligation to upkeep and maintain your property in an environmentally responsible way. You should be required to pay a deposit on any future remediations that need to be done. No further property can be acquired or sold until the property you've tenanted is remediated to the condition you acquired it, and the price paid to acquire it should reflect your track record of looking after things.
Take this one step further and remove ownership entirely. All property is that of the "Crown" - and it to be sold/returned to the crown when the tenant is done.
Property is an obligation, not a right, and one's ability to "own" is contingent on ones ability to look after the property. Similar arguments could and should be made for Pets and Children, but that's a separate diatribe...