Snowmass Council Candidates Clash Over Draw Site Housing Plan

Aspen —Four candidates. Two seats. One very crowded room at Snowmass Village Town Hall.

That was the setup for Monday night’s Squirm Night, a debate moderated by River Stingray, Editor in Chief of The Aspen Times, and Lucy Peterson, a staff reporter for the Aspen Daily News. It wasn’t just a contest for political office; it was a referendum on how we handle the tension between building enough housing for the people who keep this place running and preserving the specific vibe that makes Snowmass, Snowmass.

The core of the argument centered on The Draw Site. For context, this is an affordable housing project that has already cleared a significant hurdle, advancing to land use review on a three-to-two vote. But it still needs a supermajority to truly move forward, and the council hasn’t secured that yet.

Incumbent Susan Marolt, who voted to support the project, defended her stance. Her argument was straightforward: delay is expensive. She argued that the council had spent enough time reviewing designs and that waiting risks adding costs while delaying the actual creation of homes for workers.

“You can talk about how much you want to build housing, but you actually have to build it for it to create that community character,” Marolt said.

On the other side of the aisle was incumbent Britta Gustafson. She made it clear she is “100% in favor of affordable housing,” but she believes the current design compromises quality of life. Her focus is on cutting costs without reducing the unit count. She specifically questioned the expense of underground parking.

“We can build it better, faster, sooner,” Gustafson said.

Challenger Brian McNellis, a former senior planner for the town, said he would “absolutely” approve the project, but with cost-cutting caveats. He echoed Gustafson’s skepticism about underground parking, arguing that the site’s proximity to transit, services, and recreation should disincentivize car ownership.

“I think that’s a fairly reasonable ask for people that are living near transit, living near services and living near recreation,” McNellis said.

Then there was challenger Katie McKirahan. She represented the “three job warrior” demographic and backed advancing the Draw Site. However, she pushed back on the idea that residents should simply give up their cars in favor of public transit.

“Would you give up your car? I wouldn’t,” McKirahan said candidly.

It’s worth noting that a fifth candidate, Thea Khan-Farooqi, was unable to participate. She was traveling to visit her daughter and couldn’t connect remotely.

Looking beyond the immediate fight over The Draw Site, the moderators pointed out a larger issue: developable land is running out. The candidates offered a range of ideas on how to handle that scarcity, but the fundamental disagreement remains. Do we prioritize speed and cost efficiency, or do we hold the line on design quality?

For locals, the practical impact is simple. If the council can’t agree on how to build, the workforce stays priced out. If they do build, the character of the neighborhood shifts. The Nov. 3 election decides which philosophy wins.