Landlords use a multiplier for the income requirement to make sure the tenant can afford the monthly rent and all of the other monthly expenses and normal living expenses. When you get a mortgage loan, they use a multiplier too.  It is common sense that the person you are providing a loan to can afford to pay it while taking all of the other expenses, planned and unexpected expenses in to account. 

The tenant signs a lease as well as a HAP agreement.  The tenant has an obligation to the landlord for more than just their portion of the monthly rent that the voucher does not cover.  What about renters insurance and utilities that are required under the lease?

How does this not violate Fair Housing laws that a tenant without a voucher has to be held to a higher income standard when they are ultimately responsible to the landlord for the same amount if they breach the lease?  The tenant also has to pay for any damages beyond normal wear and tear and how is the landlord going to collect on that debt when the tenant is only required to make 2 or 3 times the portion of rent that they pay each month? Are landlords going to be protected when we get a Fair Housing complaint or lawsuit for discriminating against a tenant without a voucher? Who is going to pay the landlord's legal fees to defend this claim?

Unfortunately, if the PA decides to terminate the lease according to many reasons in the HAP agreement, then the landlord's lease is automatically terminated and then the landlord has lost rent and has to find another renter.

The only participant getting the short end of the stick is the landlord, not the tenant or the HA. Please find another solution that is fair to both tenants and landlords.