Everyone should realize that at some point, if you can’t get replacement parts or fabricated ones are cost prohibitive, you have no choice but to close an attraction. That would be a valid reason.
@Tobias brought up several good reasons as well, namely one attraction vs a land when looking at kid zone. But I would argue two of his points.
1) If it’s a “prime real estate” issue, that’s a load. Kidzone is needed to draw people to that side of the park and would be a much better area to create a new attraction. New York certainly doesn’t need it. That area is always jam packed. Likewise, shrek and DMMM are significantly more valuable plots of land; albeit not as large.
2) Single attraction vs land. Shrek is a single attraction. As is FFL. Both need addressed more than Mummy.
So yes, there can be valid reasons. But the list of valid reasons that should escape ridicule is extremely short. Specially; repair costs, maintenance or lack of replacement parts.
If it’s something as simple as “SLoP needed to be in New York, not production central”- then that deserves every ounce of criticism one can muster.
MiB and Mummy can both be replaced. That’s not the issue. The issue is timing of when they should be replaced. If the timing is before Shrek, Kidzone and FFL and if the reason isn’t that it’s falling apart and they can’t fix it (a la Disaster!), then it’s a bonehead decision.