Moral laws today

A flattering answer from the rabbi, I would not suggest that his honor rule, unfortunately a significant portion of his rulings are untrue to say the least. Today's legal system or police force are not a just system. Shame on the rabbi who writes or thinks like this.

Thanks for the offer. I'm standing in the corner feeling ashamed.

Does a tenant who signs a construction eviction or a tenant who is appointed as a "tenant representative" in a construction eviction and as a result forces the neighbors who do not want the construction eviction (because it is better for those neighbors in their home and they do not need and do not want this whole adventure) to sign under duress, otherwise they and the developer will sue them in what is called a "reluctant tenant" lawsuit, do they excommunicate according to Halacha? What does Halacha say about a Jew who, in order to improve his conditions, harms his neighbor's finances, peace, and health?

In my opinion, there is no problem with this, in my opinion: 1. Because it is the law and the law of the kingdom. 2. Because a person has the right to improve and increase the value of his property, and the other person who hinders him is actually persecuting him (not really, of course). What's more, the value of the other person's property will also improve as a result, and therefore the explanation suggests that there is no prohibition against forcing him to do so. We can get into the issues of damage to property and the law of neighbors, etc. What's more, here the majority of neighbors decided in a public decision and this has the force to impose on the minority. I remind you that according to the law, this is a very large majority (67% or even 80%, depending on the circumstances). This is no different from a community's decision to establish a mikveh or some other public institution and to pay taxes for it at the expense of the people in the community's property.
It seems strange to me that you ask what the Halacha says about a Jew who, in order to improve his conditions, harms his neighbor's property, peace, and health, when the truth is the opposite: the one who refuses to improve his life harms the property and well-being of a large majority of his neighbors simply because he doesn't feel like it. Of course, they don't harm his property, but rather increase the value of his property. At most, they harm his peace for the sake of it. It should be remembered that the law itself recognizes the right of a tenant to refuse in justified circumstances. If he refuses against the law, it means that his reasons are not justified and he is simply harming the value of his neighbors' property.
I saw an upside-down world!