The author's obvious disdain for rural Americans makes it hard to see through to his main point, that urban centers' power should not be inhibited by state gove

The author's obvious disdain for rural Americans makes it hard to see through to his main point, that urban centers' power should not be inhibited by state governments. I don't think that point stands up to scrutiny. Are state governments really hindering cities? Then why are cities growing ever more powerful, economically and culturally? And since cities contain such a large proportion of the population, they already wield proportionate power in state capitols. The notion that urban centers are superior to rural areas is ridiculous given cities' dependence on rural agriculture, natural resource extraction, etc. Could it be that urbanists simply don't want to be forced to confront in state legislatures the potential negative impacts their sprawling cities impose upon rural neighbors? That's the impression this article gives me.