This looks like the year that hard-pressed tenants in California will relief-not just in the marketplace, where tents have eased, but from the state capital Sacramento.
　　Two significant tenant reforms stand a good chance of passage. One bill, which will give more time to tenants being evicted (逐出), will soon be heading to the governor’s desk. The other, protecting security deposits, faces a vote in the Senate on Monday.
　　For more than a century, landlords in California have been able to force tenants out with only 30 days’ notice. That will now double under SB 1403, which got through the Assembly recently. The new protection will apply only to renters who have been in an apartment for at least a year.
　　Even 60 days in a tight housing market won’t be long enough for some families to find an apartment near where their kids go to school. But is will be an improvement in cities like San Jose, where renters rights groups charge that unscrupulous (不择手段的) landlords have kicked out tenants on short notice to put up tents.
　　The California Landlords Association argued that landlords shouldn’t have to wait 60 days to get rid of problem tenants. But the bill gained support when a Japanese real estate investor sent out 30-day eviction notices to 550 families renting homes in Sacramento and Santa Rosa. The landlords lobby eventually dropped its opposition and instead turned its forces against AB 2330, regarding security deposits.
　　Sponsored by Assemblywoman Carole Migden of San Francisco, the bill would establish a procedure and a timetable for tenants to get back security deposits.
　　Some landlords view security deposits as a free month’s rent, theirs for the taking. In most cases, though, there are honest disputes over damages-what constitutes ordinary wear and tear
　　AB 2330 would give a tenant the right to request a walk-through with the landlord and to make the repairs before moving out; reputable landlords already do this. It would increase the penalty for failing to return a deposit.
　　The original bill would have required the landlord to pay interest on the deposit. The landlords lobby protested that it would involve too much paperwork over too little money-less than $10 a year on a $1,000 deposit, at current rates. On Wednesday, the sponsor dropped the interest section to increase the chance of passage.
　　Even in its amended form, AB 2330 is, like SB 1403, vitally important for tenants and should be made state law.

　　36.   We learn from the passage that SB 1403 will benefit ________.
　　A) long-term real estate investors
　　B) short-term tenants in Sacramento
　　C) landlords in the State of California
　　D) tenants renting a house over a year

　　37.   A 60-day notice before eviction may not be early enough for renters because ________.
　　A) moving house is something difficult to arrange
　　B) appropriate housing may not be readily available
　　C) more time is needed for their kids’ school registration
　　D) the furnishing of the new house often takes a long time

　　38.   Very often landlords don’t return tenants’ deposits on the pretext that ________.
　　A) their rent has not been paid in time
　　B) there has been ordinary wear and tear
　　C) tenants have done damage to the house
　　D) the 30-day notice for moving out is over

　　39.   Why did the sponsor of the AB 2330 bill finally give in on the interest section?
　　A) To put an end to a lengthy argument.
　　B) To urge landlords to lobby for its passage.
　　C) To cut down the heavy paperwork for its easy passage.
　　D) To make it easier for the State Assembly to pass the bill.

　　40.   It can be learned from the passage that ________.
　　A) both bills are likely to be made state laws
　　B) neither bill will pass through the Assembly
　　C) AB 2330 stands a better chance of passage
　　D) Sacramento and San Jose support SB 1403