I think what Vag277 is trying to say is that the economic value to the local community of sporadic visitors using small local aerodromes is of much less importance than the ability to provide critical services to their community such as aeromed, emergency response etc. As can be seen from the report. small local airports almost always operate at a considerable loss, but this loss is borne by the community as the cost of having such a facility available for those needed operations, even though it means other services required by the community suffer. Thus, I have absolutely no problem with a council wanting to charge itinerants landing and parking fees, because they aren't really providing it for them. The ability for Capt Joe Bloggs to drop in for fuel (far more likely than staying the night) is just a by-product of the airport being available to service the community . Any extra that they can garner to offset and assist in providing an essential service to their community is justified imo, and ultimately allows them to spend the equivalent dollar elsewhere on necessary community services.
Rather than begrudging landing fees, GA should be thinking of it as their contribution to helping the local community. By staying away for the sake of $20 you are guaranteeing that that apron won't be extended, or that that pothole will not get filled in.