This is an interesting thought. I also wonder if Houston is "helped" by the fact that they're a blue city in a red state... that kind of ideological conflict of governance requires unique and localized solutions. Whereas SF is blue city in a blue state, so it creates a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation.
I think it also just creates a lack of "urgency" problem. I live in a blue city in a red state. Constituents expect results because we can't rely on our state gov. Local officials know this. There's more competition from more progressive candidates too locally which is helpful in keeping liberal officials more focused on results instead of the game of politics.
Idk, I think it's different for every city. But I think the point I'm trying to make is that having some kind of political constraints in governance seems to typically be a good thing for the sake of getting some shit done.
Actually I think I'm just stating an obvious point now given the glaring ineffectiveness of our two party political system...
It probably does make it easier to make drastic changes as described to consolidate data sharing etc when they ultimate authority is likely the city/county instead of the state. The state level agencies will have their own policies, systems and goals/approaches that might not suite the individual cities so the programs remain separated and fragmented.
The article itself makes this point more than once.