Dispute between apartment owners

Have a good week Rabbi,

Thank you for your willingness to provide an opinion. I was probably mistaken when I said that we would go to a Torah court, meaning to contact Rabbi Peretz (or probably someone he would recommend if he is no longer involved in this for health reasons) to hear his opinion on the basis of Halacha.

background

This is a 15-year-old residential building that includes 8 apartments in Ra'anana, 5 of which are rented and 3 are occupied by the families of the apartment owners, one of whom is our daughter (we bought the apartment about a year ago).

The original owner of the plot is the owner of 4 rented apartments – a Jewish convert (let's call him Mr. S.) who lives in the Jerusalem area. According to his statement, the apartments are an investment for his retirement and his interest is purely business and economic, and according to him, they are different and even contrary to the interests of the apartment owners who live in the building. (He also openly testifies that he is a miser.)
The owner of another apartment also rents it out and lives in Tel Aviv – was recently convinced by S. to give him power of attorney based on their shared interest in investing as little as possible as landlords, after he initially strongly supported our proposal for renovation.

Problem description

The building is very poorly maintained and its condition has deteriorated over the years, lights in the lobby and parking lot are not working, some are hanging from electrical wires from the ceiling, exposed sockets, a neglected lobby, an intercom system that does not work, mosaics covering the exterior walls are falling into a garden apartment (a safety hazard), a fire hose in the parking lot was hit by a car and was not taken care of,
The building did not have third-party insurance (we recently took out insurance under our own pressure and after Mr. S. admitted that it was irresponsible on his part)
Mr. S is the actual committee member (there was no meeting to elect a committee) who also holds the committee's tax bank account and handles problems remotely at his own pace without taking into account the harm to the tenants and in a patchwork manner.

When we joined the building, we proposed to renovate and bring the building up to standard and volunteered to manage the project (my wife is very good at design and renovations), we defined the scope of work, we brought 3 competing offers – the best offer was in the amount of 80,000 NIS – 10,000 NIS per apartment. (That is, Mr. S. has to pay 40,000 NIS
At a meeting held about two months ago, the proposal was accepted by everyone under two conditions set by Mr. S. 1. That the receipts for the work be recorded in his name (for the sake of recognition as expenses for the benefit of income tax and the ability to offset VAT – for him, the apartments are a very borderline business from a legal perspective) 2. S. claimed that he has cash flow limitations and can only pay 10,000 NIS (which he will take as a loan from the VAT department). And the rest in 10 installments of 3000 NIS per month.
The three apartment owners who live in the building agreed to its terms and it was agreed that each of us would finance (loan) him 10,000 NIS, which he would repay over 10 months.
It was agreed that we would manage the project with full transparency, within budget, and on a short schedule.
After agreeing to the terms and setting out (we bought lamps and ordered floor tiles for the lobby), Mr. S. began demanding changes to the plan, reducing some of the contents, and even carrying it out in stages rather than in sequence.

We announced that under these conditions we were not prepared to handle the renovation.

Meanwhile, in light of the heavy pressure we exerted together with the owner of the garden apartment whose tiles were falling on her "head", Mr. S. came up with a proposal to address the problem using the abseiling method and at a price of 24,000 NIS – all the apartment owners paid immediately (in light of the safety problem, which, by the way, has been going on for two years) under the understanding that Mr. S. would supervise the contractor he brought in. The work was carried out to a poor standard, without supervision, and Mr. S. evades his responsibility and requests that the apartment owners present their claims to the contractor he will call in about two weeks.

The current situation is that Mr. S., on behalf of 5 apartments, claims that he is willing to promote treatment of the problems in stages and at the pace of his financial ability and also to determine the contents (from his point of view, only the necessary things, and the 3 apartment owners who live in the building want to carry out renovations according to the agreed plan and in sequence in a short time, while we (mainly my wife Rachel) manage the project.

Mr. S.'s position (As far as I understand from numerous correspondences and text messages in the apartment owners' group and from an attempted mediation meeting that took place last week and exploded, apart from a willingness to contact Rabbi Peretz, I am of course not objective!!)

Mr. S. insists on his right to make a broad decision that he, as the representative of the majority of the apartments, will be the one to decide what, how, and when things are done in the building, and how much money is spent.
He quotes the Superintendent of Condominiums and the Real Estate Law.

He also quotes sayings and proverbs: "After many, one inclines" and "The owner of the century is the owner of the opinion."

In a concrete way regarding the treatment of the building's condition, he wants to address the problems in stages, according to the scope and priorities he deems appropriate, and at a pace that suits his cash flow (meaning spreading the work out over at least six months and incomplete and comprehensive treatment with limited supervision).

Quote from his last WhatsApp:

In my opinion, the question is incorrect, but anyone is entitled to ask as they see fit – the Rabbi is not a contractor and has not seen the quality and type of the building – so in my opinion he must bring an expert on his side.
I'm going to ask how, according to the law, one determines in a condominium what, how, and how much money? I'm not talking about a routine, but about a broad decision for all building decisions regarding building matters.
It is clear to us that according to the Supervisor of Condominiums, most apartments are regulated, but since both my son and I are closely related to the law, we ask the rabbi – each one his own question – Shabbat Shalom

I stood – along with the 3 apartment owners who live in the building

There are no wrong questions, there are sometimes wrong answers,
I am well aware of the land law and the rights of apartment owners, so there is no need to go to a rabbi for that.

But the debate and discussion is about other questions, and those are at least what I would like to raise before the Rabbi.

1. Where are the limits of the rights of the majority when its behavior over time violates the rights of the minority (by the way, this is a minority of apartment owners, but the rights of the tenants are also violated, and in fact all the tenants of the building. When I once asked some of the tenants why they did not complain to Mr. S., the landlord, they told me that they were afraid that his answer would be: "If you don't like it, you are welcome to leave, I will get a tenant with more money")

Violation of tenants' rights to safety, quality of life, security, and preservation of the value of their properties.

2. What are the duties of the majority to ensure proper maintenance of the common property and the building according to the Real Estate Law – quote:
"An apartment owner must participate in the expenses necessary for the proper maintenance and management of the common property and for ensuring the services required by law or accepted by custom, according to the ratio of the floor area of ​​his apartment to the floor area of ​​all the apartments in the condominium, unless a different participation rate is determined in the regulations;
In this regard, "proper maintenance" – maintaining the condition of the common property as it was at the time of completion of construction, including improvements made to it subsequently with the consent of the apartment owners.
3. What happens when the majority who does not live in the building and rents out the apartments explicitly declares that his interest is solely business and economic, which conflicts with the interests of the minority apartment owners, and acts in accordance with this interest while ignoring families, people, and children who suffer from this every day for a long period of time.

4. What is the rule when the majority tries to impose decisions that harm the maintenance and operation of the building for private and personal reasons and rejects offers from the partners to come forward and assist with financing?

All of the above has a name in political science and it is called "tyranny of the majority," and the minority has protections and rights.

5. What does the halakha say about "after many people, to be inclined", is the many people according to the majority of apartments or the majority of people? (Who determines more in terms of halakha: one person with 4 apartments or 3 people (and families) with 3 apartments)

We believe that after a process of bringing the building up to safety and quality of life standards, and after an orderly election of a committee that will probably include Mr. S. and another representative of the apartment owners, with routine, ongoing and responsible maintenance, there will be no significant problem with decision-making in the building.

Notes

Regarding the owner of the century, he is the owner of the opinion, I found the following passage on the "Ashova" website:

The Omer verse says, "The one who is over the hundred is the one who is over the knowledge," but this verse is not appropriate for the Gentiles, for the people of Israel the verse is the opposite: "The one who is over the knowledge is the one who is over the hundred," as those over the hundred are subordinate to those over the knowledge – knowledge of Torah, and anyone who exploits his being "the one who is over the hundred" to also be "the one who is over the knowledge," this destroys the Torah. And he destroys the entire structure of Judaism, for he acts according to his knowledge, even when it is not consistent with knowledge of the Torah.

I saw in Wiktionary that the origin of the proverb is Yiddish:
Der vos hot di maa hot di dea." (Yiddish

Thank you very much in advance.