Both are appealing. Who doesn’t favor more affordable rents or lower taxes?

But both are bad ideas even though they attempt to address real economic challenges posed by the state’s high cost of living. Like most simple answers to complex problems, they would only make matters worse.

The rent initiative, backed by labor unions, would discourage new construction, which is essential to keeping a lid on lease rates. It would also decrease property values, putting a strain on municipal budgets.

The tax cut, pushed by business groups, would take a large bite out of state revenues, forcing difficult decisions about which services to eliminate.

Here’s a quick primer.

What it would do: Filed by Homes For All Massachusetts, a coalition of housing groups, the initiative would peg allowable annual rent hikes to the rate of inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index), with a cap of 5 percent.

Landlords would be barred from raising rents after a tenant leaves. Owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units would be exempt, as would new buildings during their first 10 years. Cities and towns couldn’t opt out.

The initiative would “protect tenants from big corporate investors who unreasonably increase rents, while allowing local landlords to earn a reasonable profit and enabling new construction to address housing shortages,” said Carolyn Chou, executive director of Homes for All Massachusetts.

Several big labor unions have endorsed the measure, including the SEIU Massachusetts State Council and the Massachusetts Teachers Association.

Why it won’t work: Backers designed the proposal to sidestep the obvious flaw of rent control: that it chills new construction. Hence the 10-year exemption for new buildings.

But most apartment projects in Massachusetts take years to finance, permit, and build. Developers calculate their payoff over several decades, and a rent cap waiting at the end of year 10 changes the math.

The deeper problem is high rents in Massachusetts are a supply problem. There are not enough apartments and rental homes.

Not only do rent caps discourage new construction, they may encourage landlords to convert rental units to condos or reduce their investment in existing properties.

Moreover, evidence shows rent control can have unintended consequences.

A working paper examining St. Paul, Minn.’s 2021 rent control ordinance, which was less severe than the Massachusetts proposal, found that property values fell 6 to 7 percent. The losses were driven largely by lower expected future rents being priced into valuations.

That kind of decline ripples through municipal budgets. Cities facing shrinking tax bases typically respond by raising rates, cutting services, or both.

“It would be catastrophic for the economy,” said Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts, a commercial real estate trade group.

What it would do: Reduce the state levy on personal income to 4 percent from 5 percent, phased in over three years.

The initiative would put money into people’s hands and make sure the government is not growing faster than residents’ ability to fund growth, according to Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, a business-supported think tank that filed the measure.

“This is about making Massachusetts a place where people want to stay,” he said. Pioneer estimates the tax cut would lead to the creation of as many as 48,000 jobs and spur economic growth that would offset the loss of tax revenue within a few years.

According to backers, which also include the Massachusetts High Tech Council and the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, the net annual revenue impact during the three-year phase-in period would be about $680 million. Following full implementation, state revenue growth would increase as an economic boost from lower taxes kicked in.

Why it won’t work: Tax cuts can modestly boost growth as consumers and small businesses spend the extra money. According to a report by the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, the median household tax bill would shrink about $1,250 each year.

But the economic boost won’t fully recoup lost revenue. Claims that cuts “pay for themselves” are not supported by the weight of economic evidence.

According to the Tufts report, the tax cut would result in a much bigger hit to state revenues than estimated by the initiative’s supporters: $5.1 billion a year when fully in place, or about 10 percent of total state tax receipts. The state Department of Revenue issued a similar estimate.

“A cut of this size would more than offset the revenue gains from the millionaires tax and imperil efforts to balance the state budget and sustain core government programs moving forward,” the Tufts report said.

Massachusetts has a real cost-of-living problem, and voters aren’t wrong to demand action. But these ballot proposals offer short-term gratification without fixing the underlying problems.

Larry Edelman can be reached at larry.edelman@globe.com.

A potent frontal system will deliver rain and snow across New England Sunday evening and last through at least Monday morning. With a warm front moving east from the system, Boston will stick to rain through Sunday night, while widespread accumulating snow is expected across Northern New England, prompting winter weather alerts for that region. Folks up north will be forced to break out the shovels and snowblowers for hopefully one last time.

But by the time we start heading out the door on Monday, the rain-snow line will have sunk farther south and bring some snowfall into most of Massachusetts, including Greater Boston, along the Mass Pike, and west through the Berkshires. The South Shore and coast should stick to a light wintry mix or rain.

All in all, it looks like Boston could pick up about an inch of snow, mainly during the predawn hours of Monday. If Boston ends up with an inch, it would be the latest date in the season since 2007. Folks across northern Worcester and Berkshire counties may see 1 or 2 inches, while the jackpot totals for this storm are held to extreme Northern New England. Roads will be wet early Monday, so take it slow during the morning commute.

Scattered snow showers will linger over most of New England on Monday after the bulk of the precipitation moves offshore by late morning, keeping the day pretty unsettled under mostly cloudy skies.

Monday will remain blustery with the storm strengthening as it pulls away from New England. Wind gusts will hover around 20 mph throughout most of the day, not enough for power outage concerns, but enough to feel the wind push through your jacket.

With cold air settling in behind the passing system, Monday’s highs will be held to the 30s across most of New England. But when you pair the breeze with the cold air, most of the day will feel subfreezing, with wind chills in the 20s from sunrise to sunset.

The sun sets at 7 p.m., Monday as our days get longer.

Greater Boston: Rain Sunday evening. Wintry mix and snow showers in the morning. Lingering flurry possible during the day—highs to the low and mid-30s. Breezy.

Central/Western Mass.: Rain Sunday evening. Snow showers in the morning. A coating to an inch is possible. Isolated snow totals to 2 inches in northern Berkshire County. Highs to the mid and upper 30s region-wide. Flurry chance lingers.

Southeastern Mass.: Light rain Sunday evening. Scattered showers on Monday morning. Highs reach the mid to upper 30s. Breezy.

Cape and Islands: Light steady rain Sunday evening. Scattered showers on Monday morning. Highs to the upper 30s with a breeze.

Rhode Island: Rain showers on Sunday night. Scattered showers on Monday morning. Mostly cloudy with a breeze as highs reach the mid-30s.

New Hampshire: Snow Sunday night. Scattered snow showers throughout Monday. Highs to the mid and upper 30s.

Vermont/Maine: Snow on Sunday, scattered snow showers throughout Monday. Highs to the mid and upper 30s.

Connecticut: Steady rain Sunday night, sticking to rain showers Monday morning. Highs to the upper 30s and low 40s.

Sign up here for our daily Globe Weather Forecast that will arrive straight into your inbox bright and early each weekday morning.

Ken Mahan can be reached at ken.mahan@globe.com. Follow him on Instagram @kenmahantheweatherman.

Keeping open records in the dark is costing taxpayers in Massachusetts

As Sunshine Week comes to a close this week, government officials across the country will once again talk about transparency and accountability. In Massachusetts, however, a series of recent transparency failures shows just how far we have to go here in the Bay State.

For years, watchdog groups, journalists, and ordinary citizens have warned that Massachusetts has one of the weakest public records systems in the country. Deadlines are ignored. Fees are inflated. Enforcement is weak. And when state or local officials would rather keep information hidden, the burden too often falls on private citizens to drag those records into the light.

This is hardly a partisan critique.

On this point, even groups that rarely agree politically can see the same problem. Journalists have been forced to sue for access. Citizens have waited months or years for information that should have been produced promptly. Transparency should not be a left or right wing issue, it should be the bare minimum in a functioning democracy.

The recent examples are hard to ignore. One police department demanded $1.8 million for license-plate-reader records before that fee was later reduced. In Lexington, a school employee was caught discussing whether production costs could be inflated in hopes that a requester would give up. In Somerville, public officials spent years fighting over parking-permit data.

And then there is the state’s climate litigation against Exxon Mobil.

Massachusetts sued Exxon for allegedly misleading the public about climate change. Whatever one thinks of that lawsuit, the state put honesty, disclosure, and accountability at the center of its case. Yet when Exxon sought records related to Massachusetts’ own climate regulations and enforcement, officials resisted disclosure and triggered a separate legal battle over access to those documents.

What surfaced from that fight was incredibly troubling.

A regulation adopted under Massachusetts climate law requires state agencies with large vehicle fleets to track emissions and submit annual compliance reports. Those reports were supposed to begin in 2019. But according to sworn testimony from state environmental officials, not a single agency has submitted them. None. Regulators also acknowledged they had not conducted inspections or taken enforcement actions to verify compliance.

So, while Massachusetts was accusing Exxon of climate deception, the state was also fighting a records request that exposed its own failure to comply with one of its own climate rules.

That hypocrisy should concern everyone.

These reporting requirements exist to measure whether the state is actually doing what it says it is doing. If agencies are not filing required reports, and regulators are not enforcing the rule, then the public has every right to ask whether Massachusetts is serious about the climate commitments it promotes so aggressively.

Taxpayers also have every right to ask how much public money is being spent to keep that failure hidden.

That was the focus of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance’s recent letter to Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper. According to state spending records, since last April, EEA paid a Boston law firm over $534,000, which includes $417,620 from “Climate Adaptation and Preparedness” funds and over $117,000 from funds labeled as “Environmental Affairs Administration.” When underlying payment records were requested, both DEP and the Comptroller reportedly said they had no responsive records.

Ironically, the money spent defending the state’s failure to comply with open records laws could have gone toward actual climate compliance or easing the burden on ratepayers and taxpayers. Instead, it appears to have been simply wasted on lawyers to allegedly cover up the state’s non-compliance on its own climate mandates.

That concern is even more urgent because the Healey administration recently estimated that their climate agenda could cost an eye-popping $130 billion by 2050, while an independent study by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation estimated the cost to be over $400B for the state. While Massachusetts clearly cannot afford more burdensome regulations that will drive businesses out of the state, if taxpayers are being asked to shoulder massive new climate costs the public should at least be able to trust that the laws already on the books are being followed.

Massachusetts officials are often quick to demand transparency from corporations and the Trump administration. But transparency cannot be a one-way demand.

Our elected leaders at Beacon Hill must hold themselves to the same standard they impose on the public. It is the foundation of public trust and a problem that Massachusetts has ignored for far too long.

Paul Diego Craney is the Executive Director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance