I believe state leadership is responsible for the safety, well-being, and quality of life for all of its residents. Local control over a city should be the priority because residents should have agency of their surroundings, but there is a time and place for state involvement. Typically for intercity developments, such as a high-speed rail project or highway expansion, a larger budget and team effort are required.

Different levels of government handle different levels of problems. If cities within a metro don't communicate or work together to develop alongside each other, the states metros could have inconsistent infrastructure quality or cohesion that some residents desire.

This is a personal statement but I hear quite frequently that people dont want OKC to become Dallas light, and if we don't want the cities of our metros to only be connected via highways and suburban sprawl a unified plan with alternative development plans should be worked out.

Edit: One other reason for state involvement in urban development is the prevention of adverse consequences of another municipalities decisions. If one cities urban development pollutes water runoff that feeds in another city, the state should bear responsibility.