I include myself in the weird community of enthusiasts. But I'm self-aware enough to know that the way we tend to reflexively think about things (why didn't Park A get New Ride X, they Park A deserves it more!") doesn't apply to the real world of park management.
First of all, calling TT2 a "disaster" is an emotional response.
But more importantly, who considers the investment to be "disastrous"? Just because an enthusiast thinks it's a disaster doesn't mean the folks in charge do. Now, that's not to say the ride not opening this year is anything other than bad, but coasters are a several-decade investment, so it's a bit early to label the investment a disaster.
There were a few rides whose debuts were pushed from 2024 to 2025. Are those also "disastrous" outcomes? If those aren't "disasters" I don't see how TT2 is, considering the net effect is the same - a ride is opening a year later than originally scheduled.
Even if it were true that hotel reservations were down this year, does it make sense to spend several million dollars because a few rooms went unused during the season? It seems like it would make far more sense to simply adjust room rates, something they already do to control demand. In fact, their ability to dynamically price lodging means that if there unused lodging capacity, it's probably more or less by design.