Little things do add up; big ones add up even faster.

New London is a city that is hospitable not just to the homeless but also to the hungry, the newly born, the sick and the dying, those seeking advanced education, those who must appear in court, and those who worship in church or synagogue.

All of those human activities take place in 6-square-mile New London, by far the tiniest municipality in the region, on premises for which little or no property tax is payable. This is not news.

But the news that the Homeless Hospitality Center will apply for property tax exemption for a fifth residence to be used as long-term rental housing for otherwise homeless people rubs some city taxpayers on old sores: Why are we paying taxes on our houses to support housing others? Why do these programs always situate in New London? Why is this always my problem?

If it seems unfair that is not because people in hardship need a break, or because the city is the easiest place for those without cars or even because of the availability of older multi-family homes. Those are reasons why supportive housing works well in a city, but they are not at the root of the taxpayers' lament.

Questions have been raised as to whether the tax exemption is appropriate and officials at the homeless organization are willing to discuss it.

However, the issue of providing public safety and public works services to nontaxable properties is the smaller problem with the obvious short-term solution: proportionate help from neigboring towns that do not have to provide such services, even when the beneficiaries are former residents of their communitiies. Address a regional problem regionally.

The greater problem stems from overburdening the local property tax. Despite various forms of state aid to school systems and general government, some cities, including New London, just do not have enough taxable property as currently defined by statute. In Hartford, also relatively poor in taxable property compared to the density of its population and its urban needs, the situation has become so dire that the state capital could be bankrupt in the next few years. As Mayor Luke Bronin has said, you can only raise taxes so much.

Everyone in government knows that this is a problem that is coming due. A 2015 state tax study panel, the legislature's MORE Commission on revenue, the private group 1000 Friends of Connecticut, and lobbyists for municipalities and business have all in the recent past urged change.

During the exact same two-year period, a combination of state and nonprofit groups has been tackling chronic homelessness, breeder of misery and sometimes crime, under a mandate known as "Zero: 2016." One of those is the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness, led by Stonington resident Lisa Tepper Bates.

State Housing Commissioner Evonne Klein announced in late August that they expect to meet their objective on schedule by the end of this year. That is the backdrop for the real estate purchases by the New London shelter management, and it is good news.

That is not to say that five properties going offline in New London does not hurt, however low the tax assessments on old buildings in marginal neighborhoods. It's a few thousand dollars in missing taxes, but it's symbolic of who, under the current tax system, gets left holding the bag. 

You can't make a donation from an empty purse.

When Connecticut was a rich state it set up a Payment in Lieu of Taxes system to compensate towns both for state property (Gold Star Bridge, New London courthouse) and institutions exempt from payment (Lawrence+Memorial Hospital, Mitchell and Connecticut colleges.) As the coffers dwindled, the state has paid less than originally promised. Institutions continue to make use of local services and to remind lawmakers of the indisputable public benefits they bring by their very presence.

However, when the state gets poor enough to make tax reform an absolute necessity — now, it would seem — assumptions made in kinder, gentler times may not hold up. Every source of revenue and every means of lowering costs will need to be on the table.

If the math worked better for local taxpaying property owners, they would find it easier to empathize with people who have lost control of their domestic lives and those who are trying to help them regain it.