is this really true? you can definitely do things to it that would make it uninhabitable, no longer "fertile", or any other terms that essentially come to the same conclusion of the land being essentially destroyed.
at least as far as the context of desirability to be owned
> is this really true?
Practically speaking, yes. The value of a parcel is largely from its location/proximity to metro areas. I've never heard of someone destroying residential property directly through chemicals or radioactivity, though value can be greatly diminished by local antagonistic developments or rezoning it unfavorably.
Are you kidding me? Look up Superfund sites, and tell me they didn’t affect property values around them.