My experience with S8: There is a reasonably strong correlation between S8 tenants and tenants that do not take care of a rental property. 

“Our manager will reserve the right to reject any share repurchase request for any reason or no reason or to amend or terminate the share redemption program,” the company said.

You don't have to give reason, you know what it is.

If the separation of funds was for asset protection (in this case there was another reason), it is my belief that an umbrella policy is easier than trying to maintain separation of assets especially when the property has been purchased with individual’s money and financing.  

I'll give you a hint; the powers are very extensive, and for good reason.

They are much more reasonable and are more intertwined in a community than some lender states away.

The tenant isn't paying rent so it's reasonable to assume they aren't going to pay the electric bill.

The reason is that one wants to be able to properly avail themselves to the laws and protection of the corresponding state where the property lies.

While the location is great, parking is an issue, and can really only accommodate about 4 - 5 cars total at time reasonably. 

Could work, but remember people that need hard money usually need it for a reason.