Aloha,
Sorry, I think you miss the mark with regard to the "greatest concerns" of landlords.
1) Lost rent during the period from accepting an applicant, through inspections, and actual move in. These are days of lost rent that will never be recovered, AND, they typically are for a significantly greater number of days than a typical non-subsidized Tenant for a given market and seasonal timing. AND, you wait a month or two to get the initial payments.
2) The legal costs, lost rent, and repair costs when a Tenant must be removed for failure to abide by the contract terms. These are nearly ALL additional costs that will never be recovered. This includes those occasions where the Tenant either fails to pay their portion of the rent, or violates other terms of either the HAP contract or your Rental Agreement. Of course, those costs CAN compare equally to non-subsidized Tenants that were poorly or hurriedly screened. Most importantly, once you initiate action to cure or pay, you are required to notify Section 8 and they will, more often than not, terminate the Tenant from the program, so you will no longer be receiving those "guaranteed" rent payments while you go through the eviction process.
3) Inspections alone are not really too serious of a concern to LL's that routinely provide a clean, functional, secure unit; but what does eventually sour LL's is the fact that typically they have to make repairs later, even when the Tenant caused the damage or failure. Windows, screens, cabinet doors getting pulled off, unreported leak damage, physically damaged outlets and switches, and many more common issues are routinely pushed off on the Owner to repair. The Tenants cannot afford quality repair costs any more than they can afford market rent. "Normal" wear and tear has a much higher bar for Section 8 inspectors than it does for most Judges.
4) I 100% agree there are some good, long term subsidized Tenants, but finding them with one hand tied behind your back can be nearly impossible. Taking away the choice by LL's whether or not they want to participate with the programs is forcing many to turn their profitable "investment" into a non-profit charity. Operating a charity is noble and much needed...but should be a conscious choice. Not all investors have deep pockets to handle the higher costs and turnovers. There is no question of the "need" for housing, but reality is that bad habits beget more bad habits, and a significant percentage of those in need have bad habits in all areas of their life, as do their friends and families that also spend time at your property.
Maybe if the programs would pay for a percentage of the costs referenced above, perhaps the same percentage as their original, major share of rent, that would be a big step in the right direction. It just is not sustainable for small mom and pop investors to take those big hits every year or two. They often end up in financial difficulty as result, and are forced to dispose of the property, or just perform minimal maintenance allowing the property to deteriorate until it is a neighborhood problem.
Have I tried renting to Section 8? There was a time when I was responsible for over 600 units for about a five year period in the midwest. Easily 15% of them were section 8. So yes, I am familiar. I also understand that markets vary, smaller towns and counties might see more "good" participants, while inner city areas are much more difficult. Even here in Paradise, there is a wide range of quality in subsidized Tenants, and I've had both extremes. Promises on the front end of home visits by caseworkers and close monitoring are common. 9 Months later I received a letter advising they had removed the Tenant from the program... still no guarantees.