Let us raise a glass to American municipal governance, where land deals get rubber-stamped, paperwork gets misplaced, and a 17-year-old nearly becomes a real estate mogul. You couldn’t make this up if you tried. Wausau, Wis., bless its Midwestern heart, almost handed over three riverfront properties to a teenage boy who isn’t old enough to buy spray paint without a parent present.
Some called it youthful ambition. Others called it “Government But With Training Wheels.” What it really was, though, was a comedy of errors starring a high schooler with a dream and a city council that forgot to ask, “Wait… how old is this guy?”
Act One: The Proposal
Gunther Nowak, age 17 and gunning for an HGTV pilot, applied to buy three parcels of city-owned land for the low, low price of $1,000. The goal? Build a duplex, live in half, and rent out the rest. Admirable, right? The kid did what adults are constantly begging teenagers to do: show initiative, chase the American Dream, and invest in his community.
Only problem? You need to be 18 to legally sign a real estate contract. Minor technicality. Like forgetting the milk when you're opening a dairy farm.
Yet despite this glaring legal hiccup, the Wausau City Council voted 8–2 to approve the deal. Eight elected officials tasked with safeguarding taxpayer property assumed the paperwork had been vetted. That, or they figured the developer’s handwriting was just unusually round and bubbly.
Act Two: The Veto Heard Round the Riverfront
Enter Mayor Doug Diny. Perhaps the only adult in the room, or at least the only one reading past the applicant’s name, Diny promptly vetoed the sale, citing lack of transparency, inadequate marketing of the property, and that, you know, the buyer legally couldn’t buy it.
The best part? Just before the council was set to vote on overriding the veto, young Mr. Nowak withdrew his application. Exit stage left, no harm, no foul, no duplex.
Act Three: Bureaucratic Ballet
The aftermath was a masterclass in city spin control. The council voted 9–1 to uphold the veto, suddenly remembering that “due diligence” is not a type of cheese. Council member Becky McElhaney voiced concerns about the lack of background vetting and funding questions.
To be fair, she’s right. The city has a colorful history of real estate ventures gone sour, including a previous project that left taxpayers holding a $3 million bag of dust. So when a 17-year-old with no contractor experience applies for a major development project, and no one bothers to ask a single question, it’s not just oversight. It's negligence served with a side of public liability.
Nothing Gained, Nothing Lost?
That phrase has been tossed around a lot since the story broke. In some ways, it's true. The deal fell apart before any ground was broken or cash changed hands. No buildings went up, no lawsuits were filed, and the teenager went home without needing a lawyer or a permit.
But something was lost: credibility. Faith in local government. A measure of trust that someone, anyone, is actually steering the ship.
Sure, it was harmless this time. But what if it wasn’t? What if the next applicant is a shell company with a P.O. box in Panama? Or an out-of-town developer with a history of litigation? Or a TikTok influencer looking to build a merch house?
A vetting process that cannot catch an applicant’s age is a vetting process that’s broken.
The Teen Titan of Zoning Law
Let’s pause for a moment to give young Nowak his due. He did something bold, ambitious, and, given the city’s track record, almost successful. He read the rules, filed the forms, and aimed for something most 17-year-olds don’t even pretend to care about.
That says something. While the grown-ups were half-asleep in a council meeting, this kid was applying for permits and designing a life plan that didn’t involve avocado toast or Fortnite skins.
So, in a roundabout way, he exposed the cracks in the system. He poked the bear and found it not only asleep but snoring in a manila folder.
Due Diligence, Wausau-Style: Future Vetting Methods
Look, we all make mistakes. But when your mistake is nearly handing over public land to someone who still needs parental consent to get a tattoo, it might be time to rethink your vetting process.
The Wausau City Council, bless ‘em, has an opportunity here. An opportunity to pioneer a new kind of bureaucratic foresight, one based not on background checks or contract law but on instincts honed in kindergarten drop-off lines and back-to-school nights.
Here are a few humble suggestions to help future land deals avoid being hijacked by the next overly ambitious Eagle Scout:
- Crayon Clause: If the signature looks like it was written during snack time and still smells faintly of grape-scented wax, you might want to ask for a birth certificate.
- The Juice Box Test: If the applicant requests a Capri Sun during the meeting and follows it with a loud slurp, possibly while swinging their feet under the chair, reconsider.
- The SpongeBob Cross-Exam: If a city official can’t say the words “pineapple under the sea” without triggering a reflexive sing-along, the applicant is likely still in their Nickelodeon phase.
- Field Trip Disclosure Form: If they bring a note excusing them from the gym and permitting real estate negotiations, you might want to double-check that Social Security number.
- The Backpack Litmus Test: If their briefcase zips open to reveal a Nintendo Switch, three Hot Wheels, and a half-eaten cheese stick… yeah, maybe hold off on that title transfer.
These aren't just jokes. They're an upgrade to the current system, which, as of last week, seemed to involve glancing at a form and saying, “Eh, looks legit.”
Because when your bar for land development is “can grip a pencil,” don’t be surprised when someone colors outside the lines.
The Takeaway: Bureaucracy Shouldn't Be a Gumball Machine
You shouldn’t be able to walk up to a city council with a dollar and a dream and walk out with public land. Not without scrutiny. Not without competition. Not without a single adult saying, “Hold on.”
This was a close call, a non-catastrophe, a lesson gift wrapped in teenage bravado. It gave Wausau a chance to hit pause, rethink how it vets buyers, and hopefully, install some safeguards before someone older, richer, and far more unscrupulous tries the same trick.
Because next time, it won’t be a 17-year-old with a tool belt and a good heart.
It’ll be someone who knows how to hide the consequences.
The left will always find new ways to hide failure behind slogans. We prefer facts.
Stand with PJ Media. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT for 60% off.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member