Love the discussion!!!
@marni1971 @Master Yoda to add in info if possible!! Marie
The only area I can really comment on is the whole "Marginally Unsuitable for Development" thing.
It will all depend on why the property is considered "Marginally Unsuitable for development" as there is no real set definition or list of criteria that you can apply to all land and define it as such. In most of the cases I have had dealings with, companies define properties with terms like "suitable", "unsuitable", etc. based on the cost of developing the land relative to the profit they can generate from developing it. A higher cost is less suitable. That cost threshold varies by the company and what they plan on doing with the land. If the value per square foot goes up, so do the numbers for what is "suitable", "unsuitable", etc. Any negative terms used to describe a piece of property doesn't outright mean it is impossible to build on, it typically just costs more.
Things that drive up the cost would include structural stability of the land, accessibility, existing infrastructure, existing structures, zoning and legal classification, topography, EPA issues, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
In the simplest terms, a piece of property that is flat, undeveloped, correctly zoned, and with good access will often get a "Sutiable" rating. Change even one of those factors, some of which are nothing more than paperwork, and it can drop the land to "Unsuitable".
This is just an educated guess, but Disney will most likely build on land they have already determined to be what they consider "suitable". However, the only thing that precludes them from building on other land classifications is cost. If they determine that the cost is worth it, then they will build pretty much wherever they please.
