You seem to have a low opinion of of everyone else. sorry, couldn't resist.

No, just those liberals who believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions. If it fits...

people's ability to make their own decisions or to decide what's in their own best interests. No, we must have properly appointed government bureaucrats make all decisions. If we deny someone's property rights, tough. They should know better than to disagree with their intellectual superiors in government. Just keep paying those property taxes and shut up. /sarcasm
Better end tag would be /stupid strawman.
There is of course more to it than beatific land owners and evil local councils (likewise evil corporations and heroic environmentalists), but shades of grey dont seem to suit with you and Tom below.

If you don't like the Constitution's provisions against taking someone's property without compensation, then why don't you start the process to amend it? Perhaps the amendment would be something to the effect that, "Given that most people are too stupid to make their own decisions about property, enlightened bureaucrats and environmentalists are granted permission to deny use of private property whenever they deem necessary."

The fact is that people have been denied reasonable use of their property in many locations. The people of Washington State were fed up with it enough to pass a referendum last month. People are taking it to the courts and challenging the restrictions, just as they're challenging abuse of eminent domain laws to condemn private property and turn it over to non-public use. We aren't talking about building a highway or a bridge that serves a public use, but about efforts to force people out of their homes so a shopping mall, casino*, or factory can be built by another private owner.

*In a rare setback, Donald Trump was forced to back off on his plans to expand one of his Atlantic City casinos a few years ago by a woman who refused to sell her property and who didn't sit still when the city government tried to condemn her property. The use of eminent domain to benefit other private users is currently before the Supreme Court with a ruling expected next summer.

Seriously, would dumping dioxine increase or decrease someone's property value? One would think it would lower the value, so why would people rush to make their property toxic waste dumps?
Well that all depends on whether they let you know about, don't it.
In your world are there no toxic sites? Or did they all just happen by accident?

Most toxic waste dumps occured before there were environmental laws against them. It wasn't all that long ago (within my lifetime) that many cities dumped raw sewage into rivers and factories dumped industrial wastes at will. Dumping has been illegal for over 30 years, in large part because the effects aren't limited to the property where the dump is located. A legal toxic waste dump has to take special efforts to ensure the wastes don't spread outside of the site or contaiminate ground water. No one is arguing that people be allowed to dump illegally, on their own property or not.

As for dairy farms in the middle of towns, it seems unlikely that someone could afford enough property to operate a profitable farm in town. Land prices in most towns are just too high, especially given the low profit margins of most farms. Now, if the farm was already there and the town grew up around it, then the people who move next door really don't have much grounds for complaint about the smell (although the bonehead still will). It's like the idiots who move next to an airport then complain about the airplane noise. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for them.
alcaray provided a deliberatly silly example. You took it seriously, though I have to agree with the main thrust of your sentiment.
There are many cases around here where people moving in to their new McMansions are suing the farms over the smell.

And I know of cases about people moving next door to airports and complaining about the noise (being a pilot, this is a sore point with me.) Several years ago, we had some people move next door to the Air Force Academy and then complain about the noise from the flight operations. They didn't get any sympathy from the community. The Academy has been there since the late 1950s, so it wasn't exactly a secret about the flight operations. At the same time, there are hundreds of homes being built fairly close to the airport where I keep my plane. That airport has been in operation for well over 40 years. Sooner or later, I expect some of the newcomers are going to complain about the noise and try to shut down the airport. I see a fight coming.

And what's wrong with a car wash next door to a school? Are schools supposed to be surrounded with an economic free zone, and if so, for what distance?
I have no idea what is bad about a car wash next to a school. Noise? Increased traffic?

Depends on where the school is located. If it's located in the middle of a residential neighborhood, then there probably won't be too many businesses next door. However, if say a convencience store opens up next door offering gas and car washes, would that really represent a significant increase in traffic over the school itself? After all, how many kids walk to school anymore? As for noise, there are already laws to cover excessive noise. On the other hand, there are quite a few schools located in busy areas. Should nearby businesses be forced to close when a school is opened? I can see how well that would go over, especially in urban areas. When I was in New York City a couple months ago, every school I saw was on a busy street. Somehow, they managed to deal with the traffic and noise.