ORIGINAL: Tarasdad
One of the primary (if not THE primary) reasons you'll find very few clubs that allow a ''daily fee'' type access is the tax liability they incur. Even if your club has incorporated under non-profit status you still face a substantial tax liability for ''excess'' income. Not a lot of clubs are going to want to deal with the paperwork and legal issues involved.
Tax consequences are a consideration, but I don't see them as a really big deal even if the club is going to an extreme to profiteer by taking advantage of the situation. Nobody loses from paying taxes as a consequence of generating more income. I'm wide open to any counter argument on that issue.
I think more germane to the topic is the tenuous nature of a lease with a public entity for the exclusive use of public property. The custodians of public property seem, and I admit to a bias in their favor that generally gives them credit for this, to have an inclination to make public property available for use by the public, and a reluctance to have it tied up in leases to private entities where the lease terms arbitrarily exclude the public.
IOW, it may be advantageous to a club operating on public property to provide some measure of accommodation to the public, if only in the interest of protecting their own access to public property - even if, or especially if, it includes a condition that public persons aka 'taxpayers' must subscribe to a private non-profit enterprise for access.