Who is really behind
”The Real Burr Ridge”
Facebook Page?
Anonymous Watchdog — Or Something Else?
The Real Burr Ridge Facebook page positions itself as an independent, anonymous voice exposing Village leadership, demanding transparency, and holding officials accountable.
But a question continues to surface in Burr Ridge:
Who is actually running it?
And more importantly… why the secrecy?
A Pattern Worth Noticing
Patti Davis is not a passive observer of Village government.
Public records show she has filed an extensive series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests targeting:
Village Board meeting time changes
Trustee polling and internal communications
Trustee absences and compliance with attendance rules
Economic Development Committee gatherings
Expense reimbursements and meal charges
FOIA cost tallies and internal accounting
Enforcement activity at County Line Square
Administrative travel, recruitment, and staff training
The record reflects sustained, aggressive scrutiny of Village governance.
The subjects of those FOIAs mirror the exact pressure points that repeatedly appear on “The Real Burr Ridge” Facebook page.
Coincidence? Perhaps.
But the overlap in focus is impossible to ignore.
The Facebook Page: Same Targets, Different Platform
“The Real Burr Ridge” page consistently amplifies:
Allegations of non-transparency
Criticism of meeting procedures
Questions about trustee conduct
Accusations of poor communication
Concerns about spending and accountability
The messaging is sharper. Political. Designed to provoke.
But the subject matter tracks closely with the governance issues Davis has formally pursued through FOIA channels.
Why Stay Anonymous?
If “The Real Burr Ridge” page is truly independent, transparency should be simple.
Why hide the identity behind a page that influences public opinion, elections, and community trust?
If civic engagement is the goal, disclosure strengthens credibility.
Anonymity protects something. The question is: What?
“The Real Burr Ridge” page demands transparency from Village officials.
That standard cuts both ways.
When someone uses anonymous platforms to shape public narratives, while simultaneously filing extensive public-record requests on the same issues, residents are entitled to ask whether those efforts are connected.
This is not an accusation.
It is an accountability question.
What Residents Should Consider
One individual has repeatedly and methodically pursued internal Village records.
An anonymous Facebook page repeatedly publishes political criticism focused on the same governance themes.
The identities behind the page remain undisclosed.
The public deserves clarity.
If there is no connection, confirmation ends the speculation.
If there is, residents have the right to know who is shaping the narrative.