And I agree with all of that (and even allowed for it)
What you didn’t address is my contention that if one is addressing NO issues (via Cantrell) and NOT addressing the fact that so many of the city problems are state problems; then it’s hard to take the ‘concerned with the city’ position seriously- it’s clearly way more about taking shots than a discussion of the issues
The relationship between the state and city have been addressed numerous times, so I don't really buy that. There may be some who are not addressing the point, but I think most of the regulars here recognize the state to city issues.
Again, I maintain that Cantrell and other officials are getting the lion's share of the criticism because they represent the city. If it's someone else and they act in embarrassing ways, well, they'll get that same criticism.
And to be sure, blaming the state for the city government's shenanigans doesn't fly. The state isn't going to fix the corruption in the city government.