Author: Charles Crumpley

When I go to the Hollywood & Highland Center, I park in the basement garage. It’s clean and secure, and if you get your ticket stamped by a merchant, it costs $2 to park for four hours. What a deal.

But the city of Los Angeles, which owns the garage, reportedly lost $989,000 running it during its 2008-09 fiscal year. For taxpayers, that’s a crummy deal.

This is one example of why it’s a great idea for the city to privatize that garage and nine others like it. The city has figured it could get $100 million or more by selling long-term leases on those garages, which would help it escape its financial crisis, at least for a while.

There are advantages beyond the up-front money. The city could step out of the debt service on those garages (which is a reason Hollywood & Highland lost money), it wouldn’t have to bother with operating and upgrading them, and – not insignificantly – it would put assets in the local private sector where businesses could grow and wealth could be created.

When the federal government announced less than two weeks ago that California would get $2.25 billion to help develop a high-speed rail system, it made me wonder if the time has finally come for this good idea.

If built, California’s high-speed train, or HST, would be of great interest to the state’s business and political leaders. After all, you could board a train in Los Angeles, speed along at up to 220 miles an hour, and arrive in San Francisco a little more than two hours later. Spurs would go to other cities, such as Anaheim, San Diego and Sacramento.

Alas, the more I read up on it, the more I felt like I had boarded the blue train that Johnny Cash crooned about. There’s a real funding question and a seriously optimistic view of the ridership.

But let’s start with this basic question: If the HST existed and you were planning a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, why would you consider boarding it?

Austin Beutner is probably doomed in his new high-profile task to make the city of Los Angeles business friendly.

For one thing, he’s got only three years before Antonio Villaraigosa is termed out as mayor and Beutner will likely lose his position. Three years? That’s barely enough time to get paddling in the molasses stream that is Los Angeles city government.

(By the way, why would Villaraigosa wait nearly five years into his mayoralty before he finally appointed someone to be a jobs czar? Does that tell you this new position is truly important for Villaraigosa, or is it just the usual window-dressing political answer to the uncomfortable question about what he plans to do to combat L.A.’s 13 percent unemployment rate?)

I like my job. Always have. There’s a lot of typing, sure, but I prefer working indoors because I sunburn easily. I don’t have to work midnight shifts or weekends. The pay is fine. Gee, I hope my bosses don’t read this.

Now that I think about it, I’ve liked all my jobs. Some of my employers took a chance on me, and I’m grateful to them. I’m particularly fond of the ones who didn’t fire me.

But last week it hit me: I have been one dumb, gullible employee all these years. I’m going to stop. From now on, I’m going to be more like Conan O’Brien. Now there’s a guy who’s playing it smart.

He may love his job. He may even be grateful to his bosses at NBC for taking a chance on him. But he sure isn’t showing it. He’s not dumb. By throwing such a diva fit at the prospect of having his “Tonight Show” delayed by a half-hour, O’Brien made it clear he’s not gullible.

Northrop Grumman Corp.’s decision to move its headquarters out of Los Angeles, in and of itself, is no biggee.

We’re only talking about the loss of 300 jobs. That’s less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of all payroll jobs in Los Angeles County.

What’s more, Northrop’s departure doesn’t necessarily say anything derogatory about L.A.’s relative business climate. Northrop’s explanation that it wants to move to the Washington, D.C., suburbs to be close to its prime customer, the Defense Department, is perfectly plausible. It needs to be there; it didn’t say it’s itching to flee from here.

But rather than focus on the decision of one company to move, it’s far more instructive – not to mention important – for the community to look at the decisions of a bunch of companies. In other words, the Big Picture. Are more companies moving out or moving in? Are companies that are born here staying here and growing here? One the whole, are we thriving economically or slowly dying?

Alas, the big picture may make you squirm.

I’m a softie for a few things. Children. Puppies. And immigrant entrepreneurs.

Puppies because their fresh eyes are struck with wonder and awe at what the rest of us ignore as humdrum. Children because their spirits have not yet been crushed by cynicism; they dream of doing fun, marvelous things in a long life of boundless opportunities.

And immigrant entrepreneurs because, well, pretty much because of the same reasons.

Immigrants land on these shores and are thunderstruck by what we native-born Americans dismiss as ordinary. They see so clearly what we’ve stopped seeing.

Take the word “opportunity.” Many Americans are so accustomed to that word that it seems empty. We’re not really sure, even, what it means. Or what it looks like when it smacks you upside the head.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa traveled to Europe last week to tout Los Angeles as a center for the “clean and green” jobs of tomorrow.

What is it about that guy and green? He can’t stop yammering about that color.

He wrote on his Web site that he told the execs of some clean tech and solar firms in Germany that Los Angeles is a “natural place” to locate any business expansions because we have “a public sector that is committed to making L.A. a global capital of the new green economy.”

Well, that’s fine. But there’s one teensy little problem. Lots of the green jobs he sees migrating to Los Angeles are really blue jobs, as in blue-collar manufacturing jobs. After all, the workers would assemble solar panels and make new-generation batteries and the like. And Los Angeles has a dismal record in attracting and keeping blue-collar jobs.

I rolled my eyes a few years ago when AEG proclaimed that L.A. Live would be like Times Square of the West.

Yeah, right, I thought. Good luck with that. After all, a true Times Square-like town plaza must be widely recognized – accepted, really – by the community as its central gathering place. It must be the one spot where locals go to celebrate or mourn or mark the seasons or just hang out because, well, people yearn to be at the center, in the heart of a city. It’s got to get worn by use. In the public eye.

And L.A. Live? Only a year and a half ago, many Angelenos were dimly aware that it was under construction. Fewer still probably had a clue where it was. How could that vacant place be embraced as our Times Square?

Well, it’s only been a year since L.A. Live more or less opened, and darned if AEG isn’t pulling it off.

The recent news that Dubai may make a stunning financial belly-flop probably shouldn’t be surprising. After all, Dubai is now finishing construction of the world’s tallest building.

If you said, “Huh?” here’s the explanation: There’s a correlation between tall buildings and falling fortunes. A Deutsche Bank economist 10 years ago came up with the Skyscraper Index, in which he postulated that unusually tall buildings tend to get built (or announced to be built) just before recessions, depressions and financial panics.

Examples abound. The Metropolitan Life Tower in New York was the world’s tallest building for a few years; its construction was announced a couple of years before the Panic of 1907. Three buildings in New York – the Chrysler Building, 40 Wall Street and the Empire State Building – were constructed about the same time and each had a claim as being the world’s tallest, although the claim was brief for two. All three flung open their doors just in time to usher in the Great Depression.