There's a certain threshold where a hamburger stops being a hamburger and starts being a statement. At Eat's in the Inner Richmond, that statement costs you $27.

Let's be clear: by all accounts, the burger is genuinely good. The onion jam is a standout — sweet, savory, the kind of condiment that makes you wonder why every burger joint hasn't figured this out yet. The patty is well-executed, the bun holds up, and the overall experience is solid. No complaints on quality.

But twenty-seven dollars? For a hamburger?

As one SF resident put it, the burger was "super good especially with the onion jam... but $27 is mighty steep." And that's the tension that defines dining out in San Francisco right now. It's not that restaurants are bad — many are excellent. It's that the price-to-value equation has gone completely haywire.

We get it. Rents are absurd. Labor costs are climbing. Ingredients cost more. The regulatory burden on small restaurants in this city is genuinely punishing. We have sympathy for operators trying to keep the lights on. But at some point, consumers have to ask: is this sustainable? Are we just normalizing $30 burgers because we've been boiled slowly like the proverbial frog?

The broader issue isn't really about Eat's — it's about a city where the cost of doing business has been inflated by years of bad policy, and those costs get passed directly to your plate. Every fee, every mandate, every layer of bureaucratic nonsense eventually shows up on your receipt.

Eat's is doing what it has to do to survive. The burger is worth trying. But if you're wondering why a ground beef patty costs more than some people's hourly wage, don't blame the restaurant. Blame City Hall.

Eat's — Inner Richmond. Bring your appetite and your credit card.