The Washington Post has a page one story Wednesday about the government of the District of Columbia seizing property where gay sex clubs have been located for some thirty years.
The city, says the Post, has "notified property owners that the city will make offers for their parcels, possibly by next month, and that it intends to force out those who don't move by year's end."
The reason for the land seizure is the city's desire to build a baseball stadium on the land owned by these establishments.
Essentially, the city is taking land owned by some private businesses for the benefit of the owners, as yet unknown, of baseball's Washington Nationals.
In a piece otherwise largely sympathetic to the owners and patrons of the clubs, the Washington Post never managed to use the phrase "property rights" even once. Yet, all things being equal, isn't it wrong for the government to take private property belonging to one private business and turn it over to the benefit of another?
Didn't the property rights issue deserve at least some mention?
Apparently Post editors didn't think so. They did, however, provide plenty of coverage of the sexual elements of the story.