Why are residential leases so much in favor of the landlord in the US?

Question

I've been reading example leases and was surprised to see how much power the landlord has in the US, at least compared to Canada. For example, at least in BC, landlords must allow tenants to sublet or assign their room and cannot charge a fee. I've seen leases in California that say if a tenant wishes to sublet they will be charged $650.

Reference:

(3) A landlord must not charge a tenant anything for considering, investigating or consenting to an assignment or sublease under this section.

reference

A tenant must have their landlord’s written permission before subletting or assigning their tenancy. A landlord can’t unreasonably refuse a sublet or assignment of a fixed-term tenancy for a period of six months or more.

I've also seen no pet clauses in American leases that says tenants must not permit animals inside or around the house, including insects. Isn't it silly to say no insects outside the house?

Answer 1

Different jurisdictions have different attitudes and histories. The difference is probably more cultural than legal and both leases are quite likely legal in both jurisdictions.

In general, US jurisdictions tend towards laissez-faire capitalism and contracts have a buyer beware slant. Civil-law European countries are much more collective and have very strong consumer protection. Canada and other Commonwealth countries fall somewhere in the middle.

Answer 2

In many jurisdictions, the law is overwhelmingly in favor of the tenant. Just getting a tenant evicted to non-payment of rent is a major exercise (for a graphic illustration, watch the movie Pacific Heights). Landlord compensate by using contractual provisions.