It seems like there are two types of comparison here. And if you take the time to look at it, I think you'll find that the "blame" is being put on the wrong people.
First of all, we're comparing the fees which a 737 is charged with those of a PA28, and attempting to put some kind of proportion on their relative size. Well, sorry, but it doesn't work like that - the PA28 occupies the runway for, near enough, the same amount of time as a 737. What's more, after it's landed it's going to take on a hell of a load less fuel. It will have few passengers, which in turn means that there are less people wandering around the shopping centres - a situation which if it were allowed to develop would force the owner to reduce the rent on the retail units. About the only area where a PA28 really deserves to be charged less than a 737, in terms of raw numbers, is in parking, because you can squeeze a lot more PA28s into the same space. But airfield operators generally don't charge a PA28 the same as they charge a 737. That's very nice of them, I reckon - from an economic point of view, they're loosing money by charging us little guys less.
So the blame doesn't lie with the airfield owners.
The other comparison which people are trying to make is with the system in the US. As has been pointed out time after time whenever this subject gets raised, the US has a totally different attitude towards airports, right up to government level. Airports are owned by the government, and the government pays for the running and upkeep of the airports. That's why GA types are allowed to land at huge international airports with little or no landing fees - there are obviously huge costs associated with a PA28 landing at LAX, but the government foots the bill.
So if you want our system to be more like theirs, it's not the airport you need to talk to, it's our government. Good luck!
FFF
-------------