Blog - For The Record — NYC Department of Records & Information Services

Pauline Toole

Daylight Savings Time

Unfortunately, it is time again for that semi-annual ritual: changing your timepieces to reflect Daylight Savings Time. 

Sundial, Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, September 1937. Photographer: E.M. Bofinger. WPA Federal Writers’ Project photograph collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Spring forward. Fall back. Most have heard this axiom that reminds us of how to shift time. And on Sunday, March 9, we will be springing forward and, in many cases, grumbling about it and wondering, “When did this practice start and for what purpose?”

Interestingly, a folder in the collection of former Mayor John Purroy Mitchel (1914-1917), provides some context. Titled “Conventions-New York Daylight Savings Committee,” the folder contains various communications from 1916 and 1917.   

In May, 1916, Marcus M. Marks, President of the Borough of Manhattan announced a conference on “Turning the Clock Forward” to be held later in the month. He invited City merchants and organizations to participate. The announcement noted that Cleveland, Ohio was a leader in the practice of adjusting time, along with various European cities. New York was behind the times.  

New York Daylight Savings Committee, Invitation, 1917. Mayor John Purroy Mitchel Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

New York Daylight Savings Committee, Acceptance, 1917. Mayor John Purroy Mitchel Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Conference attendees recommended forming a committee (a time-honored manner of resolving matters). The New York Daylight Savings Committee, based in the Borough President’s office and chaired by Marks, consisted of leaders from civic organizations, law firms, financial trusts, unions, manufacturers, and academia.

In January 1917, the Committee launched the idea of a Convention that would be addressed by Senators, Governors, Mayors, and others. Marks authored a column, “Health and Wealth in Daylight” in the newspaper Evening Sun attributing the idea of daylight savings time to “the brain of Benjamin Franklin over 135 years ago.” He wrote that “In 1784, Franklin estimated that the city of Paris that year would save in its lighting bills the somewhat exaggerated sum of $19,000,000.”

The article also refuted opponents claims: “It has been suggested that all the advantages could be obtained without turning the clock ahead, by rising and retiring an hour earlier. The answer is that we would not do it; and if we tried it we would find ourselves out of harmony with our surroundings….  There is an element of psychology in this movement. It would be quite an effort for those accustomed to arise at seven o’clock to get up at six. But when the clock says seven, habit asserts itself, and in a few days no one remembers that the clock has been turned ahead.”

Daylight Saving, by Harold Jacoby, comparison chart. New York Daylight Savings Committee, 1917. Mayor John Purroy Mitchel Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

Much of the rationale included in the column was pulled from a paper written by Harold Jacoby, the Rutherford Professor of Astronomy at Columbia University. He explained the value of changing the clocks instead of changing schedules. “It is almost certain that if the factory whistles that now blow at seven should be sounded at six instead, something like an insurrection would occur among the workers. Therefore, the new plan proposes to attain the result by changing the clocks instead of the whistles.”

Mayor Mitchel accepted the invitation to address the convention at a lunch to be held at the grand ballroom at the Hotel Astor on January 30, 1917. He also appointed the required ten delegates to consider the concept.      

National Daylight Saving Convention and Luncheon, agenda, January 30, 1917. Mayor John Purroy Mitchel Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The impetus for changing the clocks originated in England but was first successfully implemented in Germany in 1916. Great Britain and France soon also adopted the system. The mayoral records fail to indicate that this occurred in the middle of World War I (1914-1918), when the goal was to reduce civilian energy use so those resources could be directed to the war effort. Adoption of the approach by both sides of the conflict is noteworthy.

The United States Congress passed legislation to create universal daylight savings time in 1918 and repealed the law in 1920. During World War II, Congress again established the program and again repealed it when the war ended. In 1966, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Uniform Time Act that standardized time zones in the country and brought back Daylight Savings Time. The start and end dates varied each time the law was revised. Currently, daylight savings runs from the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November (which usually is also the date of the New York City Marathon).      

New York Daylight Saving Committee to Mayor Mitchel, 1917. Mayor John Purroy Mitchel Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

The start and end days have always been Sundays, and the Mitchel folder contains an explanation. In 1883, the nation’s railroad companies introduced a standard system for railway timetables that established time zones and eliminated dozens of confusing locally set times. The new standard required uniformity in timetables. For travelers, the resulting schedule adjustments led to criticism. When daylight savings time was implemented in 1918, train travelers were a prime consideration: “Only continental through trains actually between stations on the critical Sunday nights near May 1 and September 30 might possibly offer some difficulty. It is for this reason that these dates are placed on Sunday, and at an hour after midnight, when few trains are in motion,” wrote Professor Jacoby.

So, in 2025, as we adjust our clocks, America’s long-lost (declined??) passenger railway system still runs the show.

Historical Anniversaries

New York City is awash in historical anniversaries. In 2024, the Netherlands Consul General of New York established Future 400, commemorating the arrival of Dutch colonists in 1624, and imagining a more inclusive future.

New Visions of Old New York, created as part of a long-term collaboration with the New Amsterdam History Center’s Mapping Early New York project.  

In 2025, New York commemorates the 400th anniversary of the founding of City government and the 200th anniversary of the opening of the Erie Canal. And, next year, we will mark the country’s semi-quincentennial—the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States as well as the 25th anniversary of the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center.

Mayor Eric Adams announced a citywide commemoration, Founded by NYC, which showcases events and sites throughout New York that “explore the City’s ongoing tradition of making history.” In partnership with NYC Tourism + Conventions, FOUNDED BY NYC will celebrate how New York City has made history, and continues to do so—highlighting the achievements driven by the creativity and resilience of the five boroughs and its people, including the perspectives of marginalized audiences like those of the Indigenous community, women, and people of color. 

Dutch vessel, 1660, in 3D, courtesy New Amsterdam History Center, Mapping Early New York.

As part of this exploration, the City’s Department of Records and Information Services (DORIS) has opened a new exhibit: New Visions of Old New York. Created in collaboration with the New Amsterdam History Center, the exhibit features a touchscreen with an interactive 3-D map describing places and people in New Amsterdam and uses records from the Municipal Archives and Library to illustrate the presence of women, indigenous people and enslaved people. The exhibit is located in the gallery at 31 Chambers Street and will run throughout 2025 and is open to the public.

Broadway, 1660, in 3D, courtesy New Amsterdam History Center, Mapping Early New York.

The Municipal Archives and Library collections at DORIS are vast and document government decision-making and interactions with a diverse community. The earliest collections date to the 17th Century and include court cases, matrimonial banns, powers of attorney, indentures of apprentices, mortgages, deeds, conveyances, meeting minutes, and government edicts. The early records provide insight into the people of New Amsterdam.

In 1625, the City’s population consisted of a handful of European residents and a substantial number of Indigenous peoples. Native Americans long pre-dated the settlers and helped the new arrivals survive. From its earliest years, the colony was notable for its diverse population. The religious groups in New Amsterdam included Lutherans, Quakers, Anabaptists, Catholics, Muslims and Jews. The colony attracted immigrants from the Netherlands, Germany, England, Scandinavia, and France. Both free and enslaved Africans also resided in the population.

Stories of everyone here in the 17th century—women, Native Americans, Black people-both enslaved and free, Dutch, English, Jewish, and Quaker settlers—are important because they are part of a complicated history, one that emphasized tolerance and acting by conscience. But also one that relied on enslaved people to build the commercial center that now is the capital of the world. And one that did not understand or particularly value the complex culture of the Lenape.

Castello Plan, 1660, in 3D, courtesy New Amsterdam History Center, Mapping Early New York.

The New Visions of Old New York exhibit and programming planned for the next few years provide an opportunity to recognize every culture that contributed and continues to contribute to a fair and just City.

During 2025, the New Amsterdam Stories project will be revitalized. This online site uses records from the Stadsarchief Amsterdam and NYC Archives to document the experiences of colonial settlers.

An Indian Village of the Manhattans, D.T. Valentine’s Manual. NYC Municipal Library.

In recent years, the Archives began focusing on a collection of Dutch records that had previously been ignored—the Old Town records from the town governments in Queens, Brooklyn, and Westchester County. Included in the collection are records documenting a business transaction between the colonists and Indigenous Americans. Unlike many similar records, the document includes the names of seven Native Americans: Tenkirau,  Ketamun, Arrikan, Awachkouw, Warinckekinck, Wappittawaekenis, and Ghettin.

During this 400th anniversary of the founding of a municipal government in New Amsterdam, we will use these colonial records to better tell the stories of a shared, complex history.


Happy Holidays 2024

Happy Holidays   

Tree Lighting, December 2007, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn, Mayor Michael Bloomberg Collection. NYC Municipal Archives 

This year there is a happy confluence of holidays—December 25 is both Christmas Day and the start of Hanukkah. And, Kwanzaa begins on December 26. All of us at the Department of Records and Information Services wish our readers a peaceful and happy holiday, whatever you celebrate.

In case you are interested in a little holiday trivia, the vertical files in the Municipal Library yielded an article titled “Christmas in New York: A Dutch Treat.” Author Diane Zimmerman credits Dutch colonialists for establishing many traditions that are associated with the holiday. “…40 short years of Dutch rule were enough to seed a tradition that would spread across the entire nation and give New York a claim to be the American model for Christmas.”

The author contrasts the Dutch immigrants in New Amsterdam with the English puritanical settlers of Massachusetts, who outlawed celebrating the holiday! In New Amsterdam, festivities began with St. Nicholas Eve in early December and carry on until early January. In fact, in the Court Minutes of New Amsterdam, the December 14, 1654 entry includes this interesting resolution:

As the winter and holidays are at hand, the Burgomasters and Schepens resolve, that there shall be no ordinary meeting between this date and three weeks after Christmas. Wherefore the Court Messenger is ordered not to summon any person, in the meantime, to a regular Court. Done.” 

DORIS is not taking such an extended holiday. But, we are issuing this very short blog early and will be back on January 3. Happy Holidays! 

Notes from Eleanor

Defying archival practices, at some point the Department of Records and Information Services created a “Special Collection” which consists of historical City government records separated from a variety of other collections. Organized alphabetically, the trove is a hodge-podge of important documents including a 1728 petition to establish a Jewish burial ground, and a 1765 letter to restore peace from British General Thomas Gage.

This arrangement highlights the shortcomings of the Special Collection. Nothing is where it belongs! If processed and filed following normal archival practices, the letters would be in folders of correspondence related to the subjects, organized by year. This would make it possible for a researcher to trace the back and forth between letters received and responses sent.   

Photo illustration, This I Remember, by Eleanor Roosevelt, Harper & Brothers, 1949. Municipal Library

Within the Special Collection is a folder labeled Roosevelt, Eleanor. It contains correspondence written to and from Eleanor Roosevelt dating from 1924 to 1945. The 1924 letter is on stationery from the Women’s Division of the Democratic State Committee. The stationery lists a who’s who of prominent Democratic women including Miss Frances Perkins and Miss Lillian Wald. The letter is written by Eleanor Roosevelt to Mrs John F. Hylan, resident of St. Marks Avenue in Brooklyn, who was married to Mayor John Hylan. The letter introduced Mrs. Pounds who was setting up the Democratic Women’s Booth at an upcoming event. DORIS currently has an initiative to provide the actual names of women, not simply their married names. Today the metadata for the letter would include a reference to Marian O’Hara Hylan.   

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

An odd item in the folder is not correspondence—it’s a first day of issue envelope dated April 24 1972, honoring Fiorello LaGuardia. 

First Day Issue, Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

All together, there are 44 pieces of correspondence; 39 are from Eleanor Roosevelt to Fiorello LaGuardia; three are from LaGuardia to Roosevelt, one is from Roosevelt’s secretary and one letter to Mrs. Hylan. Written on heavy 6” x 9” paper, the Roosevelt-LaGuardia notes date from April 9, 1935 to October 7, 1945. Most are typed on White House notepaper with a hand-written signature at the bottom. Some contain penciled notations with instructions from the Mayor. For example, the first note informs the Mayor that Eric Gugler, an architect who remodeled the West Wing of the White House also has a plan for a war memorial for Battery Park. Eleanor Roosevelt suggested that “it might interest you because of what could be done to improve that part of the city at a very small cost.” Scrawled at the top are the instructions from Mayor LaGuardia to staff: “ask Jonas Lie to look at this.”   

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Who, you might ask, is Jonas Lie? Born in Norway, he moved to the United States in 1893 and trained at the Art Student League. An Impressionist landscape painter, he specialized in coastal scenes, New York City scenes and, famously at the time, a series of paintings depicting the construction of the Panama Canal. He was also a member of the Art Commission. Did Lie check out the exhibit and vet the architect?  We don’t know but we do know that the memorial to World War 1 soldiers was not built.

Many of Eleanor’s notes are banal, part of the give and take of government. They convey information about people looking for work, express gratitude for Birthday wishes, invite attendance at events. Most begin with the salutation, “My Dear Mr. Mayor:” One interesting missive was not written to the Mayor but to Mrs. LaGuardia (aka Marie Fisher LaGuardia) and signed not by Eleanor but by her secretary, Edith Helm, aka Mrs. James M. Helm. The letter expressed concern that an earlier note inviting the couple to stay overnight at the White House went astray and reiterated the offer of a sleepover.  Did that actually occur?  

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

A duo of notes inviting the LaGuardia family for lunch and a little party and then responding back to the Mayor, expressing understanding that the children’s bed time schedule would dictate how late they could stay at Hyde Park.

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Photo illustration, This I Remember, by Eleanor Roosevelt, Harper & Brothers, 1949. Municipal Library.

Some are oblique: “I am enclosing a letter which has come to me and would appreciate it if you could look into the matter.”  We likely will never know the matter that aroused Eleanor Roosevelt’s interest on July 16, 1940. 

One note from August, 1940 generates curiosity.  “I am very anxious to have a talk with you and Mr. Flynn tells me that we had better talk in some quiet place,” it begins.  One presumes the reference is to Boss of the Bronx Edward Flynn, a strong supporter of President Roosevelt and, in 1940, the national chair of the Democratic Party.  The note continues, suggesting a visit that would require the Mayor to “climb three flights of stairs to have tea with me at my apartment, 20 East 11th Street (Miss Thompson’s name is on the bell…”  It was clearly urgent because Eleanor Roosevelt offered an alternative date when she would be back in town.  A handwritten date at the bottom, written by someone at City Hall, states “Sept 4 –“  So, presumably, the conversation happened.  

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

In August, 1941, Eleanor Roosevelt became an Assistant Director in the Office of Civil Defense, based in Washington. A September 1941 note to LaGuardia explained her approach to familiarizing herself with the organization and stated her intention, with LaGuardia’s permission, to visit the offices on Monday.

Her tenure at Civil Defense was short. Due to criticism of the President’s wife holding a position in government, she resigned in February, 1942.

One exchange of correspondence in August 1943 clearly concerns racial unrest in the City. Early that month, a white police officer shot a black soldier in Harlem.  Rumors that the soldier had been killed lit the fuse on simmering tensions over price gouging, lack of economic opportunity, discrimination and police brutality. Over two days, six black people were killed, more than 500 injured, thousands arrested and millions in property damage. Eleanor Roosevelt weighed in with a much longer note than any of the others.  Referencing her conversations with black residents of the City, she suggested hiring more black police officers, finding more summer employment for young people and expanding supervised play for the youngest residents. Further, she reported there was “a feeling that white policemen are unnecessarily harsh to young colored people.” 

This letter struck a chord. Famously pugnacious, Mayor LaGuardia responded with two single-spaced, double-sided missives in defense of the City’s efforts, dated only a day apart. Citing “lies, lies, lies and more lies concerning the situation” LaGuardia wrote that despite recruitment efforts the number of black police officers on the force had only increased by twenty since 1933 only twenty new  black police officers joined the force between 1933 and 1943. 

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

The final note in the folder dated October 7, 1945 does not use White House note paper but instead is from a New York City address on Washington Square. Written in response to LaGuardia’s request, it enclosed a pass for a Senator Farley to visit the Hyde Park grave of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt who had died on April 12, 1945 and instructed that further requests be sent to the Department of the Interior.  

Eleanor Roosevelt correspondence, Special Collection, NYC Municipal Archives.

Flag Day

June 14th is recognized as Flag Day in the United States of America.  Various states, including New York, set aside a day for honoring the flag beginning in the mid-1860s.  On a national level, Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation naming June 14, 1915 “Flag day.”  He called for a day of “renewal and reminder … of the ideals and principles” of the founding of the country.   Even though the proclamation urged that Flag Day be observed annually, it was not until 1949 that Congress established a national day to honor the flag, without making it a holiday.

June 14th is the anniversary of the date in 1777 on which the Continental Congress adopted a resolution establishing an official “flag of the thirteen United States shall be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the Union be thirteen stars, white on a blue field, representing a new constellation.”

The flag has been a symbol used to create both unity and discord over the years.   

Consider an article in the Hearst-owned New York American  from November 29, 1935 on the display of Soviet flags at a mass meeting in Madison Square Garden: “Twenty-five red banners were unfurled from the platform at that meeting. But not one of this country’s national emblems was on display!”  The article reported on the anger this generated among elected officials and civic leaders, leading to demands that the Soviet flag be banned and that all meetings should display the American flag.  The president of the Daughters of the American Revolution said, “I know of no other country in the world in which such a thing would be permitted.  I consider it a disgrace not to have the national emblem displayed at public meetings.”

Lester Stone, the intrepid Secretary to the Mayor alerted LaGuardia of the events and the newspaper’s interest in a comment on the allegations of “an insult to the American flag at a mass meeting of Communists and Socialists, at which 25 red banners were unfurled without one American flag being displayed.”  Unusually, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia did not offer a comment.

Members of the Board of Aldermen showed no such restraint.  Within the week, a proposed law was introduced and by week two, on December 10th, the Board unanimously passed the legislation that would require the display of American flags at  public meetings.  The bill required that at all public assemblies of 15 or more people where political or public questions were to be discussed, whether on the public streets or at any type of public location, “the American flag, of dimensions not less than 36 inches by 48 inches, shall be conspicuously displayed at all times …”  The bill exempted private assemblies that were not open to the public and established fines of $100 and up to 10 days imprisonment.

This touched off a firestorm of letters, telegrams and postcards sent to Mayor LaGuardia.  The Mayor’s office dutifully responded to each one, acknowledging receipt.

Organizations such as the dozens of branches of the American League Against War and Fascism, the West Bronx Workers Club, the Italian Progressive Club, the Retail Drygoods Clerks, the Teachers Union of the City of New York, and the National Council of Student Christian Associations opposed the bill.  Many referenced newspaper publisher Randolph Hearst whose papers were crusading in support of the ordinance.  The telegram from the Newspaper Guild of New York explicitly stated that it “regards the proposed American flag ordinance as a vicious proposal, sponsored not because of patriotic motives but as part of a widespread effort of reactionary newspaper interests.  It is aimed at inflaming the minds of uninformed and unthinking persons against all labor, liberal and progressive ideas.”  A postcard from a loyal American shared similar sentiments: “Hearst does not own NYC.”


There were supportive statements among the hundreds of communiques to the Mayor about this proposed local law, including those from The New York Society of Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Irish-American Independent Political Unit, various American Legion chapters, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and many individuals.

On December 31, 1935, the Mayor vetoed the proposal.  In his veto message, he noted that he could have used a “pocket veto” --not take any action - which would have effectively killed the proposal.  But he wanted to do more because of the great interest in the measure.

This has been attempted in a measure for meetings in public squares and streets.  Surely no one will contend that the presence of the flag at such meetings, in instances held by disloyal people, have made them either loyal or patriotic. 

In addition to that, the provisions of the Ordinance might well be employed to repress or limit free speech guaranteed by the Constitution.  Free speech does not mean that, because of the right of the speaker to utter a thought, there is agreement or approval of the statement, but it does mean the right of every person to speak within the limits of existing law without interference.

Patriotism can no more be instilled into a disloyal person by the forced presence of our flag than can the love of God be put into an atheist’s heart by placing a Bible in his hand.

We must protect the flag and not permit the use of the flag except with dignity, love, and respect for it.  The American flag must not be made an instrument of repression.  It must be continued as a symbol of freedom.

“It’s a grand old flag, a high-flying flag …”

A Woman of Firsts: Constance Baker Motley

This For the Record blog post expands on a brief article in the February 2024 edition of the Municipal Library’s newsletter. New York City can count many groundbreaking women among its residents and leaders. Few, though, have been as inspiring as Constance Baker Motley who should be celebrated more widely, particularly in her adopted home of New York City. Yet there is only one public space honoring her—a recreation center on East 54th Street that the Parks Department renamed for her in 2021.   

The second Black woman to graduate from Columbia University Law School, Motley was one of the groundbreaking civil rights lawyers who fought segregation and Jim Crow throughout the nation. She was the first Black woman to serve in the New York State Senate, and the first woman to serve as a New York City borough president. That should be enough. But beyond those achievements, Motley was the first Black woman to serve as a federal judge, a position she held for 39 years.  

Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, Annual Report, 1965. NYC Municipal Library.

The Municipal Library biographical collection includes news clips, mostly from long-shuttered newspapers, documenting her career, as well as a Manhattan Borough President 1965 Annual Report. The Office of the Mayor collection in the Municipal Archives includes correspondence between Motley and the Mayor’s Office.  

Born in New Haven to immigrant parents from Nevis, Baker Motley aspired to attend college but lacked resources. While working as a housecleaner she volunteered with local organizations advocating for civil rights. Partly, she was inspired after being denied entry to a Connecticut public beach due to her color. In a fluke, a wealthy white contractor was in the audience when she was making a speech. He offered to fund her college education. And she was off! 

Initially attending Fisk University, she transferred to New York University to complete her undergraduate degree and then Columbia University’s Law School. While a student, she volunteered with the emerging Legal Defense Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People—the NAACP LDF, and was among the organization’s first employees. Working alongside Thurgood Marshall throughout the South, Baker Motley achieved major civil rights victories over a two-decade career. 

The first Black woman to appear before the United States Supreme Court, she argued ten cases, winning nine of them. One notable example is successfully representing James Meredith in the fight to desegregate the University of Mississippi.  

Mayor Robert F. Wagner swears-in Constance Baker Motley as New York State Senator, February 7, 1963, City Hall. Official Mayoral Photograph Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

In a 1964 special election to fill a vacancy, she became the first Black woman elected to the New York State Senate where she served for one year.

In February 1965, the existing Borough President of Manhattan resigned to become a State Supreme Court Justice. This triggered a process to fill the vacancy. Unlike the present, the vacancy was not filled via a special election. Instead, the City Council delegation for the borough—numbering 8 men—convened behind closed doors and determined the successor. In this instance, a prominent political leader, J. Raymond Jones, opposed the candidacy of the likely successor and advanced Motley. After meeting for two hours, the Council members emerged from their conference to declare they had elected Motley. With a salary of $35,000, Motley became both the Borough President and the highest paid female elected official in the country, according to the New York Herald Tribune.  

Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, Annual Report, 1965. NYC Municipal Library.

As Borough President, Motley championed the work of community boards and urged policymakers to tackle disparities, as she wrote in the transmittal letter for the 1965 Annual Report: “...our government must mount unceasing attacks on problems, old and new, so that, for example, we no longer perpetuate the misery of slum life which scars the urban scene just beyond our enclaves of culture and skyscraper symbols of material wealth. Superior educational facilities, jobs for all, and an improved business climate, are other problems of major import which must be met resolutely and solved satisfactorily.” 

Manhattan had established a community board structure in 1950 and Motley worked closely with these community leaders to advance projects and to develop plans that would end the “tale of two cities.” This included hosting two conferences for board members and the public to focus on revitalizing Harlem, from river-to-river. She recognized the need for board staffing and noted that “widespread and responsible citizen participation is not the natural state of affairs in local government, it must be nurtured.”   

Drawing on the Harlem community boards and other leaders, she organized two conferences that focused on revitalizing Harlem, from river-to-river between 110th and 155th Streets. The first conference led to agreement on a seven-point program to revitalize Harlem. Step one was securing funding in the capital budget. Step two was getting support from the two candidates for Mayor. Step three was getting federal funding.

Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, Annual Report, 1965. NYC Municipal Library.

Motley requested funding to develop a master plan for the project. The City Planning Commission did not include the request in their proposed budget and suggested that the request be taken up by the next mayoral administration. At a hearing on the budget, Motley testified, “I regard your observation as being both a frivolous and pedantic method of disposing of a problem which simply can not and must not be shoved under the rug of additional review or early consideration. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the population of our city realizes the frightful dimensions of the social economic and human problems we nurture in the slum ghetto.”

The project did receive capital funding when the new mayor, John V. Lindsay included $700,000 in the budget to advance community planning.

The second conference in January, 1966 was attended by both United States Senators, Jacob Javits and Robert Kennedy as well as Mayor Lindsay. The proceedings of this event were taped by WNYC, the municipal radio station and can be heard here.

One notable action incorporated into development plans was a series of community generated amendments to the Morningside Heights General Neighborhood Renewal Plan. Due to Motley’s insistence, and the deference given to Borough Presidents in certain actions, the Board of Estimate incorporated several amendments to the plan. These dealt with “insuring the continuation of the mixed racial and economic character of the neighborhood, maintaining the present width of Eighth Avenue, adequate relocation housing sources on the West Side, priority consideration for rehabilitation of existing housing as opposed to demolition and new construction.” Further, the adopted plan limited expansion in the neighborhood to those in the plan, in an attempt to reduce large institutions eradicating neighborhoods.  

Motley also weighed in against the Lower Manhattan Expressway which Robert Moses still advanced, despite 25 years of community opposition. She forecast that the planned Board of Estimate vote to designate the Haughwout Building (location of the first elevator) a landmark would finally end the project.

She successfully opposed the relocation of a concrete plant from 34th Street to 131st Street and the Harlem River. Instead, she persuaded the Board of Estimate to locate a park on the waterfront, although the space remained largely undeveloped until the 1990s. 

Borough President Motley did not confine her work to the borough of Manhattan.  The Annual Report includes her statement on the development of an industrial park in Flatlands, Brooklyn. She linked the matter to the desegregation of the City’s schools and urged the development of an educational park to advance integration. In a deeply-moving statement, she cited her commitment to integrated public education and noted that without completely integrating housing, the City needed to pursue alternatives to achieve the goal. “The next generation must be fully equipped to secure the jobs which are available…. The needs of factories in New York deserve consideration.  But so do the needs of children. I cannot approve the allocation of this entire site, a vast bloc of the city’s most precious resource—open land—without any provision for meeting the equally important problem of how to provide quality integrated education.

To the thousand of boys and girls in the ghettoes of Bedford Stuyvesant and Brownsville, the plan for an industrial park offers nothing. To a number of adults, who may commute from their suburban homes in segregated areas, this plan offers city-subsidized jobs.

I do not oppose jobs, but when a plan is proposed to provide these jobs that would also permanently preclude the breaking of racial barriers that divide children, that price is too high to pay.

It will not be my vote on the Board of Estimate which locks the door to the ghetto and throws away the key.”

1965 Woman of the Year. Constance Baker Motley, center receives an award from the American Association of University Women, New York City branch, October 8, 1965 (the women to the right and left of Baker Motley are not identified). Official Mayoral Photograph Collection. NYC Municipal Archives.

She also was ahead of her time in trying to identify and root out conflicts of interest. She developed a three-question survey for her staff asking for a list of any entity in which the individual or family member held office, owned a financial interest or was employed by an outside organization.

In total, she served only 13 months as the Borough President. One wonders if Motley had continued as Borough President, what might have been different in our City.

Instead, though, Senator Robert Kennedy recommended her for a federal judgeship on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. When quizzed about this suggestion, Motley expressed skepticism that her name would advance through the Justice Department review, be submitted by President Lyndon B. Johnson and approved by the Senate. In an interview with the New York Post she offered her thoughts. “But even if such an appointment were contemplated, there would be the unlimited time to be consumed in investigation. You know that I have appeared before practically every federal district court in the South, before the 4th, 5th, and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeal, before the Supreme Court.

“Each of these lower court judges would be asked to evaluate me, and I don’t think some of the Southern judges involved would have had such a high opinion of me, considering the matters I brought before them.”

But, in 1966 President Lyndon B. Johnson did nominate Motley for the position. The confirmation process took some time. As predicted there was pushback from Southern lawmakers.

She remained as Borough President while the nomination made its way through the confirmation process. During this time, Motley’s advocacy for the Harlem revitalization project continued. In August, she urged Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller to construct a State office building in Harlem stating that it would increase employment and reduce tensions.

Upon confirmation, over the objections of Southern senators, she became the nation’s first Black woman federal judge, taking a pay cut. 

Constance Baker Motley became the chief judge of the District Court in 1982 and continued to serve as a judge until her death in 2005.

In January, 2024, the United States Postal Service honored her with a Black Heritage Stamp joining her legacy with that of hundreds of Black leaders like Harriett Tubman, A. Philip Randolph, Ida B. Wells, Martin Luther King Jr.  Ella Fitzgerald, John Lewis and more. Let’s see what New York City can do to further commemorate this remarkable woman.

If these highlights pique your curiosity, check out the biography: Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality by Tomiko Brown Nagin. 

Powered by Squarespace