Responsa for Bava Batra 16:19

Q. The leaders of a community decided to introduce a new method of taxation whereby real property was to be taxed at the same rate as money. Prior thereto, real property was not so taxed. Are leaders of a community empowered to introduce such a change in the method of taxation?
A. No; a change in an accepted custom, which will benefit some members of the community at the expense of others, can be introduced only by unanimous consent of the members.
R. Meir adds that throughout the kingdom, no taxes on real property are levied by the Jewish communities; that those whose wealth consisted mostly of money, attempted several times to introduce a change and tax real property; and that he, R. Meir, did not permit the enforcement of the change, for the reason quoted above.
SOURCES: Pr. 941; Mord. B. B. 481; Agudah B. B. 20. Cf. Weil, Responsa 84; Menahem of Merseburg, Nimmukim (44); Moses Minz, Responsa 63a; Terumat Hadeshen 342.

Q. A group of Jews of town T, without the knowledge or consent of the other Jewish inhabitants of T, formed a community organization and elected a single governing body with the power of apportioning taxes and managing all other communal and religious affairs. This organization assumed the authority to exercise these powers on all the inhabitants of T. Rabbi Meir Kohen, however, protested denying their authority, and refused to pay the taxes levied on him. He was willing to become a member of the community and share in the carrying of the community burden, provided he be permitted such rights in the election of leaders as were held by the other members of the community, or that the taxes be levied equitably, i.e., in exact proportion to a person's wealth. The elected leaders refused to accede to R. Meir's wishes and, with the help of Gentiles, forced their way into R. Meir's house and seized some of his valuables as pledges for the unpaid taxes. R. Meir retaliated by hiring other Gentiles who took back his valuables by force.
A. The Jews of T who have banded together in electing leaders and giving them authority to manage all communal affairs, had no right to do so even though they represented a majority of the Jewish inhabitants of T, as long as a minority took no part in the reorganization, for no new custom or institution can be established in a community without the knowledge and consent of all its inhabitants. The talmudic statement: "The inhabitants of a city are permitted to enforce their rulings" (B.B. 8b), means: a) If the people of a city unanimously agree to enact a certain ruling, they are permitted to punish and fine anyone who subsequently disregards that ruling; or, b) the seven leaders of a community, originally elected with the knowledge and consent of all the members of the community to manage community affairs and to punish offenders, have the right to enforce their rulings and decrees. But, no majority of city dwellers can force a minority to be governed by a ruling to the original passing of which they have not consented, or to accept the authority of leaders whom they have not consented to elect.
Moreover, any ordinance passed by the inhabitants of a city without the knowledge or consent of a great man (a scholar) residing in their midst, is void and is not binding even upon those who passed the ordinance (B.B. 9a). There can be no doubt, therefore, that no community can pass an ordinance to be binding upon the scholar himself, unless he agrees to its enactment. Thus, an organization established against the express wishes of R. Meir Kohen, a person of high standing and scholarship, has no right to force its authority on all the inhabitants of T. Therefore, R. Meir had the right to resort to the help of Gentiles in order to recover his valuables.
SOURCES: Pr. 968; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 299c; ibid. p. 363b.

Q. When the bishop, an officer of the king, came to redeem the king's pledges from A, the latter demanded his interest at the rate of four pennies per week per pound. The bishop became very angry, uttered many profanities against the Jews, and even threatened to have them driven out of France (?). Subsequently, the bishop demanded that the officers of the community (אמרכלים) obtain the king's pledge for him. The community officers took the pledge from A and delivered it to the bishop, who, thus appeased, paid them the same amount he had originally offered A. A now demands that the community officers pay him the amount they promised him by a solemn handclasp at the time they took the king's pledge from him. The community officers, on the other hand, claim that they did not intend to pay him more than they were to receive from the bishop. Moreover, there exists a community ordinance forbidding anyone to charge interest above two pennies per pound per week.
A. The people of a city have a right to enforce their regulations (B.B. 8b) and to punish and fine anyone not heeding them, especially in such cases where the regulations strengthen the position of the community and tend to ward off disaster. Therefore, the community officers had a right to force A to lower his demand for interest, and they did well even in misleading A, and thus avoiding a calamity.
The question is signed: Yedidyah b. R. Israel, probably of Nuremberg, cf. Cr. 12 end.
SOURCES: Pr. 980.